Arcane Jill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if you lowercased that, surely you'd get <j, combining dot above>. > How should that be rendered?
This is already addressed: lowercase j is "soft-dotted" meaning that its default dot disappears when there's a diacritic above it, and this includes the combining dot above. So <j, combining dot above> is not canonically or compatibility equivalent to <j>, but both normally look the same when rendered, and the difference that is invisible in lowercase, comes back to visible when converted back to uppercase. So the semantic is preserved...
