From: "Kent Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Don't know. But there are instances of sharp s (Ã) that look like a ligated > long-s (Å) and ezh (Ê).
We have: 02A7;LATIN SMALL LETTER TESH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T ESH;;;; but no canonical or compatibility decomposition as t + esh, even though it is a clear ligature using the short-leg esh. I wonder why there's no VARIANT defined for the short leg ESH (i.e. that has no descender below the baseline). In fact other interesting "digraphs" are: 02A3;LATIN SMALL LETTER DZ DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER D Z;;;; 02A4;LATIN SMALL LETTER DEZH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER D YOGH;;;; 02A5;LATIN SMALL LETTER DZ DIGRAPH WITH CURL;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER D Z CURL;;;; 02A6;LATIN SMALL LETTER TS DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T S;;;; 02A7;LATIN SMALL LETTER TESH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T ESH;;;; 02A8;LATIN SMALL LETTER TC DIGRAPH WITH CURL;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T C CURL;;;; 02A9;LATIN SMALL LETTER FENG DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;;; 02AA;LATIN SMALL LETTER LS DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;;; 02AB;LATIN SMALL LETTER LZ DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;;; For D Z CURL, it's strange that we don't find in the UCD a decomposition similar to the decomposition of D Z... Finally, it seems that these two: 021C;LATIN CAPITAL LETTER YOGH;Lu;0;L;;;;;N;;;;021D; 021D;LATIN SMALL LETTER YOGH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;021C;;021C are variants of 01B7;LATIN CAPITAL LETTER EZH;Lu;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN CAPITAL LETTER YOGH;;;0292; 0292;LATIN SMALL LETTER EZH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER YOGH;;01B7;;01B7 and I wonder how these YOGH differ from EZH, or if the Unicode 1.0 name of EZH was misleading...
