> Note also: the Soft_Dotted property was created and considered
> specially for Turkish and Azeri.
Adding to the long, and unfortunately getting longer, list of misleading
statements from Philippe! No, the reason for the Soft_Dotted property
was/is to mark which characters (regardless of language) that don't
display
intrinsic dot(s) above subglyph(s) when (another) combining character
above
is applied to it (and to then keep the dot(s) a combining dot above or a
combining diaeresis, as appropriate, must be used explicitly).
> In this language context the ASCII i is always rendered with a dot,
> kept also for uppercases.
I hope you don't mean to use a dotted glyph for U+0069!
B.t.w. It is perfectly legal to use a ligature (in the TECHNICAL sense,
perhaps not the typographic sense) for <f, i> also for Turkish and
related
languages, especially if the f and i would otherwise overlap. The point
is that <f, i> and <f, dotless i> must be clearly distinguishable for
these
languages, and that may mean that one has to use a TECHNICAL ligature
for <f, i> having a glyph where the dot on the i is clearly visible (the
horizontal bar of the f and the top serif of the i may still merge).
That may be done by whatever means that is better-looking for that
particular font, e.g. moving the loop of the f to the left, right, or
up.
(Using ZWNJ should not do that, if correctly implemented, but can
instead, mistakenly, result in overlapping f and dot-of-i glyphs, since
not
even a technical ligature, IIUC (correct me if I'm wrong), would be
allowed...)
/kent k
