Yes, precisely. It's the combining behaviour that matters, not the
distinction between the two slightly different low lines.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela_at_cs.tut.fi>wrote:
> 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 - 12:59:16 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 09 2012 - 12:59:16 CDT