Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Fri Jul 11 2003 - 08:56:27 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures"

    On Friday, July 11, 2003 1:12 PM, Kent Karlsson <> wrote:

    > > Note also: the Soft_Dotted property was created and considered
    > > specially for Turkish and Azeri.
    > Adding to the long, and unfortunately getting longer, list of
    > misleading statements from Philippe! No, the reason for the
    > Soft_Dotted property was/is to mark which characters (regardless of
    > language) that don't display intrinsic dot(s) above subglyph(s)
    > when (another) combining character above
    > is applied to it (and to then keep the dot(s) a combining dot above
    > or a combining diaeresis, as appropriate, must be used explicitly).

    I don't know how I can say, with my limited English, things without
    being always accused of creating misleading things.

    Correct things if you think my words create possible confusion in
    their interpretation, but please don't over-exhibit them. I don't know
    how non-English native writers can participate here if all differences
    of interpretations caused by possible use of inappropriate English
    terms are answered with flame. This is really frustrating...

    The important words in my sentence is "considered specially",
    where "specially" does not imply "only". It's just that Turkish and
    Azeri are already given special treatment in Unicode, which already
    includes language exceptions in its technical algorithms (notably
    for character foldings).

    And according to this treatment, the U+0069 character is already
    intended to have a semantic value of a dotted <i> and not a dotless
    <i> in languages where this creates a semantic difference, so the
    question of the "Soft_Dotted" property is more glyphic than purely
    semantic, and it has a semantic behavior (at the abstract text
    level where Unicode is supposed to standardize things) mostly in
    case folding operations where the actual encoding of the converted
    abstract text is important.

    The rest of the description of the Soft_Dotted property is mostly a
    recommandation for authors of fonts and text renderers, so that
    they should *preserve this semantic difference* in the rendered text
    between abstract letters dotted and dotless <i>'s... And this does
    not affect the encoding of the abstract text or any algorithmic
    transformation of the encoded abstract text.

    By saying "preserve this semantic difference*, I do not imply that
    the U+0069 must/should have a dot above: it remains a font design
    problem, out of scope of Unicode. There are certainly many ways
    to preserve the semantic difference in the rendered text when this
    is really appropriate (for example in Turkish and Azeri, or with a
    distinct and emphasized rendering of the Turkish dot, including
    in possible ligatures with other letters).

    And please, do not flame me if this message contains new
    terms that also create confusion. I can reread the best I can,
    and there are certainly other better ways to say the same thing
    in English without these unintentional confusive interpretations,
    and I am sorry by advance that such confusion still persist.

    Accept the fact that I'm not a Unicode member and Unicode
    is only one of my interests, and I have a lot of other
    terminologies with which I have to work with.

    If you can't accept that approximative English language may
    be used by participants here, and refuse to understand the
    real intent of users when they write here, then have this
    group be moderated, but don't say it is open to discussions
    from anybody using Unicode.

    For normative aspects, with all exact terms, Unicode has its
    web site, its publications, its data files, its working draft
    documents, its technical committees, its permanent members,
    its chaimans, and even bug&comment report forms to
    interact with users at the normative level.
    And I am sure that permanent Unicode members do not even
    need this newsgroup to exchange their work on normative
    documents that are directly sent to the working committee
    bureaus, or via private email, phone calls, snail letters, or
    their own web sites.
    Please don't expect the same linguistic level quality here.

    Also don't complain if my messages are long, but the constant
    critics about what I am "supposed" to "imply", gives me no
    other choice than explaining always what I mean, and this is
    particularly lengthy, and really boring in a newsgroup.

    Thanks for your patience.

    -- Philippe.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 11 2003 - 09:30:52 EDT