2012-10-09 20:32, Bill Poser wrote:
> No, I was contrasting the behaviour of s followed by U+0332, for which
> there is no precomposed letter, with U+1E95, which is the precomposed
> equivalent of z followed by U+0332.
You meant to write “followed by U+0331” at the end. But in any case,
this is a matter of contrasting a letter followed by a combining
diacritic (a “decomposed letter”) with a precomposed character. You
could equally well have contrasted U+0332 with its canonical
decomposition; in HTML terms,
ẕ<br>
z̲
These render differently (except on Firefox), when e.g. Courier New is used.
Yucca
Received on Tue Oct 09 2012 - 12:52:08 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 09 2012 - 12:52:08 CDT