John Hudson schreef: > By the way, although Unicode calls it a cedilla, the correct form to use > with G is the disconnected, 'under comma' form.
Ah yes, the cedillas; now these are ambiguous! What is the "correct form" for cedillas under N, K, L, R, S and T? What should these look like? The fonts I've seen disagree on all of them: some have commas, others have "real" cedillas. Since Unicode 3.0 came out with its new code points 0218..021B (S and T with comma below), it has been my conviction that 015E..015F and 0162..0163 should look like S and T with real cedillas. Am I wrong in that assumption? Even some fonts which have, for instance, 021A (T with comma below) defined, make 0162 (T with cedilla) look like a T with an under comma. Now I must admit, I haven't come across many texts which used Ts with cedillas. Not in printed form, that is; the only ones I have seen were in electronic form, where their appearance depends on the font used. Pim Blokland
