Re: IJ joint in spaced lettering

From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai (
Date: Thu Jan 19 2006 - 00:52:37 CST

  • Next message: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai: "Re: Dutch IJ & the austrian stamp's encoding"

    -On [20060109 11:07], Jukka K. Korpela ( wrote:
    >I guess the most relevant question is whether the use of the IJ ligature
    >is considered as the most appropriate way of writing Dutch. If it is, then
    >using U+0132 and U+0133 is adequate: there is no other way to represent
    >the ligatures, except perhaps in some publishing software. And the CLDR
    >data for the Dutch language,
    >includes the ij ligature (U+0133) in the exemplarCharacters set (which is
    >a rather strong position: it means that the character is required for
    >proper writing of Dutch, not just a desirable feature). Naturally,
    >U+0132 is implicitly included as an uppercase counterpart.

    The problem is that it is debated. The Taalunie (a bunch of people that
    think they are the custodians of the Dutch language) are rather against it,
    but the way we got taught in school is that ij as a sound (resembling ei's
    sound) is a ligature of i+j. Also, when a word starting with i+j needs a
    capital, it will be IJ, not Ij, thus enforcing, in my opinion, the fact that
    it IS indeed a ligature.

    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)> / asmodai
    Free Tibet! | Je maintiendrai! |
    Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 19 2006 - 00:54:27 CST