[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: > Thus, the digraph <0062>+<0068> (i.e., "bh") represents the same conceptual > object as <1E03>. Note that, if a selection of Irish text is set using one > convention or the other, problems with spell checkers will occur UNLESS there > is some metadata that indicates the writing system.
Well, unless your spelling-checker author is bright enough (as is very likely) to handle both dot-convention and h-convention spellings. These are not intrinsically tied to Uncial vs. Antiqua font styles, though; one can write perfectly good Irish in Antiqua style and still use dotted consonants. > Marion's question--i.e., "how to guarantee continuance, in the specific context > of Irish text computing, of the traditional restriction of the Irish diacritic > dot (having only one single function in Irish) to the consonants to which it > belongs"--implies that "dotless i" and "i" are not the same character because > the latter DOESN'T EXIST in the traditional writing system. But of course "i" exists in the traditional writing system. It's just that its *appearance* lacks a dot. You might as well say that "g" does not exist because it has a special shape in Uncial fonts. > In the context of a document using traditional Irish orthography (which does > not contain "i"), how can "dotless i" be preserved in plain text? By *encoding* text with "i", and using Uncial fonts to preserve the characteristic appearance. -- I am expressing my opinion. When my John Cowan honorable and gallant friend is called, [EMAIL PROTECTED] he will express his opinion. This is http://www.ccil.org/~cowan the process which we call Debate. --Winston Churchill
