Arcane Jill wrote: > I sometimes wonder whether or not it was a wise choice to regard > "LATIN SMALL LETTER I" and "LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I" as distinct. > Too late to change it now, of course, but (with the benefit of > hindsight) it occurs to me that if U+0069 had been regarded as > dotless, all these problems would never have arisen. Western fonts > could still have rendered it with a dot, Turkish fonts could have > rendered it without a dot, and everyone would have been happy.
Dotted and dotless I are both used in Turkic languages. They are not glyph variants of one another. > Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm making this up as > I go along. Don't take any of it seriously. Agreed. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
