From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:26:03 EST

  • Next message: Arcane Jill: "Re: Investigating: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J WITH DOT ABOVE"

    Ernest Cline <ernestcline at mindspring dot com> wrote:

    > It would have been better in my opinion to have encoded upper and
    > lower case forms of both characters separate from the ordinary I.
    > That would have placed language specific burdens not on the casing
    > algorithm of Unicode but on the transfer of data from legacy
    > character sets.

    This added expense *needed* to be at the Unicode end, not in the
    character-set conversion process. Unicode-aware processes are supposed
    to be able to understand such things anyway. And what do you do about
    keyboards if Turkish undotted I and dotted i are different code points
    from "ordinary" I and i?

    I used to think I understood the situation with dotless j, when Unicode
    experts stated confidently that it would not be encoded because no
    writing system used it. Now that it is scheduled for encoding on
    math-notation grounds, but in a normal Latin-extensions block -- not
    just as a U+1Dxxx math symbol -- I don't know what to believe.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:14:07 EST