From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:11:10 EST

  • Next message: Ernest Cline: "Re: Investigating: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J WITH DOT ABOVE"

    On 17/03/2004 09:59, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    >Arcane Jill <> wrote:
    >>But if you lowercased that, surely you'd get <j, combining dot above>.
    >>How should that be rendered?
    >This is already addressed: lowercase j is "soft-dotted" meaning that its default
    >dot disappears when there's a diacritic above it, and this includes the
    >combining dot above.
    >So <j, combining dot above> is not canonically or compatibility equivalent to
    ><j>, but both normally look the same when rendered, and the difference that is
    >invisible in lowercase, comes back to visible when converted back to uppercase.
    >So the semantic is preserved...
    But if you had a font (e.g. a Celtic one) in which lower case i or j is
    dotless, should the soft-dottedness be cancelled and the dot appeared
    anyway? (Dare I suggest that this would give a way of writing Turkish
    with a Celtic font? Probably not as it would mean non-standard encoding
    of the Turkish text.)

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:00:05 EST