RE: Accented ij ligatures (was: Unicode Public Review Issues update)

From: Kent Karlsson (kentk@cs.chalmers.se)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 06:19:44 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"

    > In either cases, the "Soft_Dotted" property is probably overkill on
    > the existing <ij> or <IJ> ligatures (should should have been better

    There is no point in having a soft-dotted property for the capital
    letter...

    > named "letters" and not "ligatures") for Dutch. Or is this update
    > needed to document officially the expected rendering behavior for
    > sequences <ij,accute> and <ij,macron>?

    Yes. <ij ligature, combining acute> should give a dotless ij digraph
    with an acute accent centred over it; <ij ligature, combining double
    acute> should give a dotless ij digraph with an acute on top of each
    dotless subletter glyph; I'm by now not sure which is the correct one,
    but the first one can only be produced this way. (And the others are
    unrelated to the dotless-i and dotless-j, so keep these two out of the
    pot.)

    > The main interest of the Soft_Dotted property is not to describe the
    > rendering for the character,

    Yes, it is. I should know, the soft-dotted property was my suggestion
    in the first place... And please read the note accompanying the "public
    review issue". Not all of the characters in my initial list was
    actually
    given the property, however. This is what the current suggestion
    tries to correct. I know, there are Thai and Khmer letters where a
    "glyph
    appendage below" is removed when there are other things below, like
    a vowel or a subjoined consonant; and there is as yet no property for
    that...
    (But those appendages don't have any similar combining character below
    either.)

    > but to document how case conversions
    > (lowercase, uppercase, titlecase, folded) can be performed safely on

    The soft-dotted property is not primarily defined for case mapping,
    even though it is used there too. Case mapping is documented in the
    UCD;
    for non-same-always-1-1 cases, they are documented in SpecialCasing.txt.
    There is no special rule for the ij/IJ combination (even for Dutch)
    there; and
    it may be unlikely that there will be one. It's easier to just use the
    ij ligature
    characters (which do have the expected case mapping already)...

                    /kent k



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 07:08:31 EDT