From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:11:10 EST
On 17/03/2004 09:59, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>Arcane Jill <email@example.com> wrote:
>>But if you lowercased that, surely you'd get <j, combining dot above>.
>>How should that be rendered?
>This is already addressed: lowercase j is "soft-dotted" meaning that its default
>dot disappears when there's a diacritic above it, and this includes the
>combining dot above.
>So <j, combining dot above> is not canonically or compatibility equivalent to
><j>, but both normally look the same when rendered, and the difference that is
>invisible in lowercase, comes back to visible when converted back to uppercase.
>So the semantic is preserved...
But if you had a font (e.g. a Celtic one) in which lower case i or j is
dotless, should the soft-dottedness be cancelled and the dot appeared
anyway? (Dare I suggest that this would give a way of writing Turkish
with a Celtic font? Probably not as it would mean non-standard encoding
of the Turkish text.)
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:00:05 EST