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 and/or ligs as appropriate to the font’ technology could
> just use the ‹ij› glyph w/ an extra acute. Either way it is a glyph
> issue rather than a character issue.
Doesn't it create a new equivalence for the sequences
<ij, diaeresis> and <ij>
if neither of them are followed by another combining above diacritic ?
If we dont want such equivalences, the Unicode standard should
say then that it's illegal to use two consecutive identical combining
diacritics. Or simply forbid using <ij,diaeresis> alone (not followed
by another diacritic with CC=230).
Yes this is really tricky, and academic, I admit. But what forbids
encoding two superposed arrows above any letter? Or encoding
a <ij,macron> (with the dots removed from ij) followed by
diaeresis, which could have a mathematical meaning?
-- Philippe.
