From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 22:08:26 CST
From: "vlad" <emperor dot vlad at gmail dot com>
> 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?
Unicode does, Iİıi. (sᴍᴀʟʟ ᴄᴀᴘs notwɪthstanding. Ditto soft dotted property.)
On the system here:
U+0069, U+0307 = i with two dots above, stacked
U+FB01, U+0307 = fi_lig with default positioning of combining
dot, in other words the combining dot overstrikes
inside the top of the ligature somewhat centrally.
U+0066, U+200D, U+0069, U+0307 same as previous
(Clearly, the font developer didn't anticipate dotting
an fi ligature, otherwise the dot would've centered
above the ligature...)
U+0066, U+200D, U+0131, U+0307 = does not make a ligature
(but neither does U+0066, U+200D, U+0456)
(and neither would U+0066, ZWNJ, U+xxxx)
(And, on this system - U+0066, U+0069 never ligates anyway in any
of the plain text editors I've ever used. As expected.)
Different systems may handle this differently. Here it is in UTF-8:
IMHO, discretionary Latin ligatures should be disabled by default, unless
ZWJ is used, of course, in which case the ligature isn't discretionary.
Users should be able to enable or disable them.
(Hmmm, would a Turkish small cap font map the dotted small U+0130 at
U+0069 or U+0131?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 06 2005 - 22:10:35 CST