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
In either cases, the Soft_Dotted property is probably overkill on
the existing ij or IJ 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 document
Kent Karlsson kentk at cs dot chalmers dot se 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,
On Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:55 PM, Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My feeling about the proposed Public Review document should
exclude the ij ligature, waiting for the decision about the new
dotless-ij ligature approved in the first rounds by UTC and
waiting for approval by ISO
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 (which does happen!), the dots must
go. Simple as that.
Maybe it was a bad idea to include as a character in Unicode at
all, but
On Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:09 PM, Pim Blokland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it was a bad idea to include 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.
Philippe Verdy verdy_p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
Maybe it was a bad idea to include 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
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.
This
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 applications may
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:
Of course a given fonts diaeresis will often not line up with the
stems of its ij, and a custom one should be used instead. Or
features and/or ligs as
10 matches
Mail list logo
