Doug Ewell scripsit: > CGJ + COMBINING DIAERESIS is a hack, but then again the need to draw a > distinction between the exact same combining mark used for two different > phonetic purposes is a bit of a hack too.
However, there used to be typographical distinctions in certain German fonts between umlaut and diaeresis: see the examples on p. 15 of Victor Gaultney's paper "Problems of diacritic design for Latin script text faces" at http://www.sil.org/~gaultney/ProbsOfDiacDesignLowRes.pdf (warning: 1.4M), particularly Figure 39. > The alternative proposed by DIN, creating a new COMBINING UMLAUT > character, would have caused *unprecedented and catastrophic* > equivalence and normalization problems. Indeed. -- "Take two turkeys, one goose, four John Cowan cabbages, but no duck, and mix them http://www.ccil.org/~cowan together. After one taste, you'll duck [EMAIL PROTECTED] soup the rest of your life." http://www.reutershealth.com --Groucho
