Curtis Clark wrote,
> on 2004-03-18 01:05 Pavel Adamek wrote:
> > So it would be convenient to have an empty diacritical mark,
> > (COMBINING NOTHING ABOVE)
> > which would cause the "soft" dot of or to disappear,
> > without adding anything else.
>
> Assuming this could be added to any other
on 2004-03-18 01:05 Pavel Adamek wrote:
So it would be convenient to have an empty diacritical mark,
(COMBINING NOTHING ABOVE)
which would cause the "soft" dot of or to disappear,
without adding anything else.
Assuming this could be added to any other character, my mind boggles at
the implicatio
> 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 it would be convenient to have an empty diacritical mark,
(COMBINING NOTHING ABOVE)
which would cause the "soft" dot of or to disappear,
w
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We might hope that within twenty years almost all new
> documents will be marked with their language.
We might also hope that within twenty years almost
all new documents will use Unicode. It is at that point
that the benefit of my me
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Investigating: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J
On 17/03/2004 11:30, Ernest Cline wrote:
...
Mixed Turkish and other European language documents that are without
language markup have the same problem, no matter where the burden
is placed. Some I's will receive inappropriate glyphs when a casing rule
is applied. The problem is just as pronou
Peter Kirk suggested rhetorically:
> Dare I suggest that this would give a way of writing Turkish
> with a Celtic font?
What I need, however, is a way of writing Japanese with a
Mongolian font. ;-)
--Ken
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 17/03/2004 07:12, Ernest Cline wrote:
>
> >Well, in the event that Unicode ever does add DOTTED J to go with
> >DOTLESS J, I sincerely hope that it does not follow the example of
> >DOTTED I and DOTLESS I. It would have been be
On 17/03/2004 09:59, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Arcane Jill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But if you lowercased that, surely you'd get .
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, a
Arcane Jill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if you lowercased that, surely you'd get .
> 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
On 17/03/2004 07:12, Ernest Cline wrote:
Well, in the event that Unicode ever does add DOTTED J to go with
DOTLESS J, I sincerely hope that it does not follow the example of
DOTTED I and DOTLESS I. It would have been better in my opinion
to have encoded upper and lower case forms of both charact
But if you lowercased that, surely you'd get .
How should that be rendered?
> -Original Message-
> From: Kent Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> A dotted capital J can already be encoded as .
> Hence, a separate precomposed such character will not be added.
>
> /kent k
>
> > Well, i
Ernest Cline wrote:
> It would have been better in my opinion to have encoded upper and
> lower case forms of both characters separate from the ordinary I.
> That would have placed language specific burdens not on the casing
> algorithm of Unicode but on the transfer of data from legacy
> charact
A dotted capital J can already be encoded as .
Hence, a separate precomposed such character will not be added.
/kent k
> Well, in the event that Unicode ever does add DOTTED J to go with
> DOTLESS J, I sincerely hope that it does not follow the example of
> DOTTED I and DOTLESS I.
Well, in the event that Unicode ever does add DOTTED J to go with
DOTLESS J, I sincerely hope that it does not follow the example of
DOTTED I and DOTLESS I. It would have been better in my opinion
to have encoded upper and lower case forms of both characters
separate from the ordinary I. That wo
On 17/03/2004 04:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
The discussions, esp. the one on "dotless i" brought a question up my mind:
Why doesn't capital J have a dot above?
Actually, my feeling is that as a kid, I used to put a dot on top of J during
elementary school in Turkey. But as I stated i
Dear all,
The discussions, esp. the one on "dotless i" brought a question up my mind:
Why doesn't capital J have a dot above?
Actually, my feeling is that as a kid, I used to put a dot on top of J during
elementary school in Turkey. But as I stated in the subject I am investigating. I need
to a
17 matches
Mail list logo
