On Monday, June 30, 2003 1:33 PM, Kent Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or would this require using a diaeresis instead centered above the > > digraph? > > Probably. But are there any examples of this in use (ever, not > necessarily Unicode encoded, or at all digitally encoded)? If that kind > of thing never has occured before, it does not really matter very much, and > some coarse approximation will do fine. I admit this is quite coarse. But as there does not seem to exist any language for which a single or double dot above would be used over this character, I think that a sequence like: <ij, combining dot above> would be rendered as a pair of undotted ij, with a single centered dot above. using the diaeresis to make a version with two dots. So if one really wants to emulate the past bad behavior of some old fonts for <ij, combining accute accent>, where dots were kept, he could use now: <ij, combining diaeresis, combining accute accent> (using the new soft_dotted property of <ij> which removes its dots when combining with any ABOVE=230 diacritics, including the diaeresis, so that this will produce exactly two dots, and not a quad dots). > > For the modifier letter j or Greek letter yot, this is less > > ambiguous. > > > > The proposal however is fine for the mathematical variants of i and > > j, (including the double struck italic, for unification reasons) > > I think so too (though I don't know what you mean by "unification" > here). I am speaking about the few "holes" in the mathematics block, which were unified with pre-existing characters in other blocks. So if the update is accepted for the new mathematics block, it must be accepted also for these characters not present in these holes but unified with characters of previously encoded blocks. -- Philippe.
