TUS 6.1 says:
"P9 [Guideline] When a nonspacing mark is applied to the letters i and j or
any other character with the Soft_Dotted property, the inherent dot on the
base character is suppressed in display."
Well, the term non-spacing mark is too wide here. Non-spacing marks include
marks below and more. This only applies to marks directly above, cc 230.
Later in TUS 6.1:
"Dotless Characters. In the Unicode Standard, the characters ³i² and ³j²,
including their variations in the mathematical alphabets, have the
Soft_Dotted property. Any conformant renderer will remove the dot when the
character is followed by a nonspacing combining mark above. T"...
That is (almost) correct: "combining mark [*directly*!] above" is cc 230.
UAX 44 has:
"Characters with a "soft dot", like i or j. An accent placed on these
characters causes the dot to disappear." That is sort of correct, but
apparently open to misinterpretation. This goes for all cc 230 ("Distinct
marks directly above"), and is not open to anyones own interpretation of
what an "accent" (or "diacritic") is. (Thus, e.g., "Other_math" plays
*no* role here.) And: 20D7;COMBINING RIGHT ARROW ABOVE;Mn;230;..., U+20D7
does have cc 230.
And yes, my original suggestion to the UTC did include "cc 230". Not sure
why that formulation sometimes seems to have deteriorated.
/Kent K
Den 2012-08-02 03:09, skrev "Leo Broukhis" <l...@mailcom.com>:
> Kent,
>
> No, 20D7 is not a Diacritic, it is Other_Math, therefore the dot should
> remain.
> In general, mathematical combining characters are not diacritics.
>
> Renderers that treat "combining" as a synonym for "diacritic" and
> remove the dot are in error.
> UAX 44 says, "Characters that linguistically modify the meaning of
> another character to which they apply. Some diacritics are not
> combining characters, and some combining characters are not
> diacritics."
>
> Leo
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Kent Karlsson
> <kent.karlsso...@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>
