Kent Karlsson wrote:
>> Believe it or not, the IJ and ij digraphs *were* included for
>> compatibility with an 8-bit legacy character set (ISO 6937).
>
> 6937 is a multibyte encoding (one or two bytes per character).
> There are no combining characters at all in 6937, even though
> there is a com
> In either cases, the "Soft_Dotted" property is probably overkill on
> the existing or ligatures (should should have been better
There is no point in having a soft-dotted property for the capital
letter...
> named "letters" and not "ligatures") for Dutch. Or is this update
> needed to docume
> Believe it or not, the IJ and ij digraphs *were* included for
> compatibility with an 8-bit legacy character set (ISO 6937).
6937 is a multibyte encoding (one or two bytes per character).
There are no combining characters at all in 6937, even though
there is a common misunderstanding that there
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at
>> all, but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when
>> refining the rules, to deprecate it practically.
>
> No, that was needed for correct Dutch support. Look at the case
> conversion of into
On Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:09 PM, Pim Blokland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at
> all, but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when
> refining the rules, to deprecate it practically.
No, that was needed for correct Dutch sup
Michael Everson schreef:
> I think the answer is, regarding the soft dot property, please
leave
> the ij ligature alone.
And I think not.
When putting accents on the ij (which does happen!), the dots must
go. Simple as that.
Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at
all, bu
On Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:55 PM, Kent Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My feeling about the proposed "Public Review" document should
> > exclude the ligature, waiting for the decision about the new
> > ligature approved in the first rounds by UTC and
> > waiting for approval by ISO JTC.
> > I don't know of any instances where a ij digraph would keep the dots
> > AND get additional accent marks, nor of any where the ij would
> > appear with a dotless i and dotless j and a single dot above,
> > centered between them. Can you give examples?
>
> No of course:
So why do you care?
>
On Monday, June 30, 2003 9:13 PM, James H. Cloos Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if you want two dots and an acute use ‹ij, U+0308, U+0301›: ij̈́
>
> Of course a given font’s diaeresis will often not line up with the
> stems of its ij, and a custom one should be used instead. Or
> features an
On Monday, June 30, 2003 1:58 PM, Pim Blokland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philippe Verdy schreef:
>
> > Interesting issue for the Latin Small "ij" Ligature (U+0133):
> > Normally the Soft_Dotted issupposed to make disappear one dot when
> > there's and additional diacritic above, but many appli
Philippe Verdy schreef:
> Interesting issue for the Latin Small "ij" Ligature (U+0133):
> Normally the Soft_Dotted issupposed to make disappear one dot when
> there's and additional diacritic above, but many applications may
> keep these two dots above, fitting the diacritic in the middle.
>
> Thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
