From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:03:55 EST
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <email@example.com>
> Peter Kirk wrote:
> > On the other hand, the change to Unicode required for Irish to use
> > dotless i would be rather trivial, simply adding Irish to the existing
> > list currently consisting of Turkish and Azeri, to which Tatar,
> > Bashkir, Gagauz, Karakalpak and various minority languages of
> > Azerbaijan should also be added.
> Yeah, but then your spelling would be wrong every time you decided to
> print in Times Roman instead of Celtic Pride Bold.
And I do think that most Irish texts are already rendered with classic fonts
like Times and Arial, MUCH more often than with a Celtic font. So Irish texts
already use the dotted glyph, and requiring these texts to be reencoded would be
a nightmare for much more Irish users, that would be constrained to use a font
supporting the dotless i (the risk being that this character not being rendered
at all in many texts instead of being rendered correctly with a dotted glyph
with the most usual fonts).
I won't support the precendent of changing a encoding rule for Irish, because
it's simply not needed when rendering texts with usual fonts (even if they
display a dot), or when rendering the same texts with a Celtic font (without the
The very unusual case of rendering Turkic languages with a Celtic font should be
handled as an exception, by the Turkic author that will adapt the text at the
same time as it chooses to render it with a unusual Celtic font.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:35:14 EST