Re: Irish dotless I

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:03:55 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Irish dotless I"

    From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <>
    > Peter Kirk wrote:
    > > On the other hand, the change to Unicode required for Irish to use
    > > dotless i would be rather trivial, simply adding Irish to the existing
    > > list currently consisting of Turkish and Azeri, to which Tatar,
    > > Bashkir, Gagauz, Karakalpak and various minority languages of
    > > Azerbaijan should also be added.
    > Yeah, but then your spelling would be wrong every time you decided to
    > print in Times Roman instead of Celtic Pride Bold.

    And I do think that most Irish texts are already rendered with classic fonts
    like Times and Arial, MUCH more often than with a Celtic font. So Irish texts
    already use the dotted glyph, and requiring these texts to be reencoded would be
    a nightmare for much more Irish users, that would be constrained to use a font
    supporting the dotless i (the risk being that this character not being rendered
    at all in many texts instead of being rendered correctly with a dotted glyph
    with the most usual fonts).
    I won't support the precendent of changing a encoding rule for Irish, because
    it's simply not needed when rendering texts with usual fonts (even if they
    display a dot), or when rendering the same texts with a Celtic font (without the
    The very unusual case of rendering Turkic languages with a Celtic font should be
    handled as an exception, by the Turkic author that will adapt the text at the
    same time as it chooses to render it with a unusual Celtic font.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:35:14 EST