Re: Accented ij ligatures (was: Unicode Public Review Issues update)

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 22:47:47 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Jacobs: "Re: unsubscribe???"

    Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:

    >> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at
    >> all, but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when
    >> refining the rules, to deprecate it practically.
    > No, that was needed for correct Dutch support. Look at the case
    > conversion of <ij> into <IJ>, even with titlecase...

    You don't need a separate character for that. You can use special
    casing rules. That's why Unicode doesn't have special I and i
    characters for Turkish.

    Believe it or not, the IJ and ij digraphs *were* included for
    compatibility with an 8-bit legacy character set (ISO 6937). Whether
    that automatically means they should have been assigned canonical
    instead of compatibility decompositions, I don't know.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 23:31:43 EDT