RE: Case mapping of dotless lowercase letters

[Arcane Jill]

I sometimes wonder whether or not it was a wise choice to regard "LATIN SMALL LETTER I" and "LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I" as distinct. Too late to change it now, of course, but (with the benefit of hindsight) it occurs to me that if U+0069 had been regarded as dotless, all these problems would never have arisen. Western fonts could still have rendered it with a dot, Turkish fonts could have rendered it without a dot, and everyone would have been happy.

As an analogy, albeit a rather silly one, if (in mathematics) I put a dot over a (single-letter) variable name to indicate (say) first derivative or something, I would have to put an extra dot over i, would I not? Does that not make it "conceptually" dotless, even though it's rendered with a dot?

Jill

Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm making this up as I go along. Don't take any of it seriously.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Case mapping of dotless lowercase letters
>
>
> This is quite irritating, because original strings that are
> distinct with
> case folding will not remain distinct with case folding, if
> they are first
> converted to uppercase.