From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 15:28:22 EST
Kent Karlsson
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> > I do hope that dotless-j and dotted-J ...
>
> Dotless j. That's in the works.
>
> A precomposed dotted uppercase J? No, I think I can predict
> that there will be no such encoded character. If you want a
> dotted uppercase J, use <J, combining-dot-above>.
I admit that the precomposed dotted-I was not really needed as
well, as it has a canonical equivalence with the decomposed
letter.
As both J and dot-above are already encoded, the stability
policy would require a candidate dotted-J to have a canonical
decomposition EXCLUDED from NFC/NFKC recomposition (as it
would break the NF(K)C form of existing texts that are coded
with <LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J, COMBINING DOT ABOVE>). So
the only good justification of encoding dotted-J would be for
compatibility with another legacy encoding for roundtrip
conversion, if this charset made the distinction between the
precomposed and the decomposed sequences.
However, could there be an encoding for:
<LATIN CAPITAL LETTER DOTLESS J>
with a lowercase mapping to the new:
<LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J>
Of course the former would look exactly the same as the
ASCII uppercase J, except that it would have a distinct
case mapping. This would avoid, for j/J the nightmare
of dotless-i/dotted-i/I...
__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside
Newsletters for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 16:21:04 EST