Ar 09:59 -0400 1999-07-05, scríobh LaBontÈ, Alain:
>[Alain] What troubles me is that, in a way similar to what Michael says,
>some will be tempted (because of bad rendering systems) to use DOTLESS I in
>order to compose an I CIRCUMFLEX or an I DIAERESIS, while canonically these
>are not equivalent to Îî or Ïï...
Tempted? I do this now with Quark XPress when I need to write Lithuanian
I-OGONEK or older Greenlandic I-TILDE without stopping and making a font
for them. And as you know, I'm good at making fonts.
Most users are not.
>Problem is that ISO/IEC 10646 does not preculde to use any letter with any
>combianing character... Unicode is more prescriptive, although I guess it
>is not forbidden either to do like in the ISO standard (it is just that
>canonical equivalence is not guaranteed then, which puts the problem back
>to square one).
Unicode cannot prevent a user from using any letter with any combining
character either.
>The same problem could occur if we were to encode a DOTLESS J. I hear what
>Michael says though, and it makes sense to me. Solving it will also create
>a problem that exists with DOTLESS I used outside of Turkish.
How big of a problem? There are only 2 precomposed small-j characters in
the UCS.
-- Michael Everson * Everson Gunn Teoranta * http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Guthán: +353 1 478 2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT