Here is what I would consider a "pretty good" case for encoding dotless j.
Prove the existence of at least one paper document (e.g., a book) published
prior to 1990 with copious examples of prose in some human language not
mathematics in a variant of the Latin script so contrived that dotted j and
dotless j occur with reasonable frequency in the same alphabet in contrastive
use. Barring that kind of usage, I think there is no reason for encoding a
dotless j, and the subject should just be dropped.
To write Esperanto you can use U+0135 and U+0134; so examples in Esperanto
don't count.
Rick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT