From: vlad (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 18:57:48 CST
> > Couldn't the automatic ligation of fi be prevented in Turkish/Azeri by
> > encoding their dotted i as i + COMBINING DOT ABOVE, rather than i
> > alone?
> It could, but that's not what the character is.
Well, it seems to me that i is undefined as to whether it has a dot
above or not. Its dot may disappear when ligated or when replaced with
a diacritic, and some fonts might display it dotless in all situations
(for example, fonts where lowercase letters are displayed as small
caps). In a situation where it is important to distinguish between
dotted and undotted forms, wouldn't it make sense to encode an
explicitly dotted form, rather than an ambiguous one?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 06 2005 - 18:58:28 CST