Dutch malarkey (was: Re: (base as a combing char))

From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Mon Nov 29 2004 - 15:22:41 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Ideograph?!?"

    Philippe Verdy responded to John Cowan:

    > From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
    > > the need to encode Dutch
    > > ij as a single character, which is neither necessary nor practical.
    > > (U+0132 and U+0133 are encoded for compatibility only.) In cases where
    > > ij is a digraph in Dutch text, i+ZWNJ+j will be effective.

    > Those that want a
    > strong distinction will more likely use U+0132 and U+0133 in their word
    > processors,

    Those Dutch typists who do this will simply be introducing problems
    into their text.

    > assisted by Dutch lexical correctors so that they will just need
    > to enter "i" then "j", and let the word processor substitute the two letters
    > appropriately by the ij ligated letter when it is appropriate, leaving other
    > instances unchanged.
    > As the ij ligated letter is most certainly the most frequent case for
    > entering Dutch text, it may be the default behavior of a Dutch input method,

    This is just malarkey. Dutch can and should continue using sequences
    of "i" and "j", as they have been for decades.
    We went around and around on this topic a number of months ago
    already, and the baloney is still baloney, even if Philippe
    has attempted to slice it a little thinner this time around.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 15:27:11 CST