Re: Dutch IJ, again

From: Karl Pentzlin (karl-pentzlin@acssoft.de)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 14:29:55 EDT

Next message: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"

Previous message: John Hudson: "Re: PUA glyphs in fonts (was: Is it true that Unicode is insufficient for Oriental languages?)"
In reply to: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Next in thread: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Reply: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Reply: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Am Montag, 26. Mai 2003 um 16:13 schrieb Pim Blokland:

PB> Because there ARE words in Dutch where the combination i+j is not
PB> the same as ? (e.g. "bijectie") ...

In quality typography, does the "ij" in "bijectie" look different
from an ij ligature?
Is it recommended to write "bi[ZWNJ]jectie" when you don't use
U+0133 for "common" "ij"s?
- Karl

Next message: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Previous message: John Hudson: "Re: PUA glyphs in fonts (was: Is it true that Unicode is insufficient for Oriental languages?)"
In reply to: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Next in thread: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Reply: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Reply: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 15:08:59 EDT