Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote: >> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at >> all, but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when >> refining the rules, to deprecate it practically. > > No, that was needed for correct Dutch support. Look at the case > conversion of <ij> into <IJ>, even with titlecase...
You don't need a separate character for that. You can use special casing rules. That's why Unicode doesn't have special I and i characters for Turkish. Believe it or not, the IJ and ij digraphs *were* included for compatibility with an 8-bit legacy character set (ISO 6937). Whether that automatically means they should have been assigned canonical instead of compatibility decompositions, I don't know. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
