From: Jim Allan (jallan@smrtytrek.com)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 14:30:20 CST
Rich Gilliam wrote:
> It suggests that
> for many fonts,
>
> U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G + U+0327 COMBINING CEDILLA
>
> and
>
> U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G + U+0312 COMBINING TURNED COMMA ABOVE
>
> would have exactly the same rendering. Some applications would need to
> know this and treat U+0067 U+0327 the same as U+0067 U+0312 as
> equivalent.
>
I have seen _g_ with cedilla rendered with a rotated cedilla sticking
out of its head. Very ugly!
But regardless, there is no obligation that a turned comma over _g_
produced by a following cedilla must be graphically identical to a
turned comma produced by a following combining comma below.
> I wonder if there's call for some sort of table of Unicode sequences
> that aren't canonically equivalent but render the same.
It seems to me that Cedilla/undercomma folding would be a useful
addition to "Charater Foldings" at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr30.
Jim Allan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST