Re: Irish dotless I

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 05:22:31 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Irish dotless I"

    Michael Everson <> wrote:
    > At 21:42 +0100 2004-03-16, Antoine Leca wrote:
    > >Also, Michael, tell us if your name when written inside some Irish text,
    > >should it be considered English, or Irish? Then, should the i be dotted?
    > My name should be written with U+0069 as has been stated already. In
    > a Gaelic font, it would be drawn without a dot.
    > This is the most elementary of character/glyph issues.

    I fully approve here. Irish has no distinction between a dotted and undotted i.
    Both forms are a i, even if the prefered glyph form should be drawn undotted.
    Irish is not Turkish or Azeri where this distinction is meaningful and critical,
    and that need then separate character pairs (for lowercase and uppercase).

    If an author wants to insist on the Irish style when rendering Irish plaintext,
    he can choose a font with a Gaelic style where i is undotted. If one uses a
    classic font like Times or Arial, it's normal that the dot is present, and this
    does not break the Irish orthograph. If an author really wants to make the i
    undotted with a specific font that has a dotted i, then this is not a question
    of plain-text. The author can either substitute characters, or use formating
    options on top of the plain-text to substitute the glyph normally used to
    represent a soft-dotted i.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 05:52:34 EST