Re: Small i with/out dot and with arrow

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:47:09 +0100

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:09:27 -0700
Leo Broukhis <> wrote:

> No, 20D7 is not a Diacritic, it is Other_Math, therefore the dot
> should remain. In general, mathematical combining characters are not
> diacritics.

While not definitive, note that U+20D7 is in the 'Combining Diacritical
Marks for Symbols' block. I would certainly expect soft-dotted letters
to shed their dot for third or fourth derivatives written as fluxions,
(Mind you, I would arrange the dots in a triangle or square - am I
using different characters?)

> Renderers that treat "combining" as a synonym for "diacritic" and
> remove the dot are in error.
> UAX 44 says, "Characters that linguistically modify the meaning of
> another character to which they apply. Some diacritics are not
> combining characters, and some combining characters are not
> diacritics."

The definitive text would appear to be Section 3.13 Definition D138 and
Table 3-14, as confirmed by the usage in UCD file SpecialCasing.txt.
The key property is canonical combining class 230, so 'i' would lose
its dot for U+20D7, just as it should for a Hebrew accent or a Tai Tham
or Tai Viet tone mark, but not a Thai or Lao tone mark. (The odds of
getting reasonable, let alone compliant, rendering for any of these
mixed script combinations is fairly low.)

Received on Thu Aug 02 2012 - 14:49:30 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Aug 02 2012 - 14:49:31 CDT