From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Peter Kirk wrote: > > On the other hand, the change to Unicode required for Irish to use > > dotless i would be rather trivial, simply adding Irish to the existing > > list currently consisting of Turkish and Azeri, to which Tatar, > > Bashkir, Gagauz, Karakalpak and various minority languages of > > Azerbaijan should also be added. > > Yeah, but then your spelling would be wrong every time you decided to > print in Times Roman instead of Celtic Pride Bold.
And I do think that most Irish texts are already rendered with classic fonts like Times and Arial, MUCH more often than with a Celtic font. So Irish texts already use the dotted glyph, and requiring these texts to be reencoded would be a nightmare for much more Irish users, that would be constrained to use a font supporting the dotless i (the risk being that this character not being rendered at all in many texts instead of being rendered correctly with a dotted glyph with the most usual fonts). I won't support the precendent of changing a encoding rule for Irish, because it's simply not needed when rendering texts with usual fonts (even if they display a dot), or when rendering the same texts with a Celtic font (without the dot). The very unusual case of rendering Turkic languages with a Celtic font should be handled as an exception, by the Turkic author that will adapt the text at the same time as it chooses to render it with a unusual Celtic font.
