On 17/03/2004 09:59, Philippe Verdy wrote:
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...
But if you had a font (e.g. a Celtic one) in which lower case i or j is
dotless, should the soft-dottedness be cancelled and the dot appeared
anyway? (Dare I suggest that this would give a way of writing Turkish
with a Celtic font? Probably not as it would mean non-standard encoding
of the Turkish text.)
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
