Den 2012-08-01 19:41, skrev "Andreas Prilop" <prilop4...@trashmail.net>:
> Is it correct that
>
> U+0069 U+20D7
> U+006A U+20D7
>
> should have a dot
No, they are soft-dotted:
0069..006A ; Soft_Dotted # L& [2] LATIN SMALL LETTER I..LATIN SMALL
LETTER J
which means that the inherent dot should be removed if a diacritic above the
letter
is added, which it is in your examples. However, I have yet to see a system
that
handles this correctly...
But note all the canonical decompositions that have i as base and a
diacritic above, like
U+00EC, LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH GRAVE, canonical decomposition: 0069 0300,
and there is no dot above in the rendering of a LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH
GRAVE.
If you really want to keep the dot above for i or j (or other soft-dotted
character),
you should add the dot explicitly, like in the named sequence
LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE AND ACUTE;0069 0307 0301
> and that
>
> U+0131 U+20D7
> U+0237 U+20D7
> U+006B U+20D7
>
> should have no dot?
Not sure why you include "k" here (which has no dot any which way)...
But the two first ones in the second group should nominally look the same
as the two in the first group. However, it is not to be recommended to use
<U+0131, U+20D7> nor
<U+0237, U+20D7>
(one might consider some kind of "error rendering").
/Kent K
