>>NO. There's no canonical equivalence between distinct pairs of >>characters, if the first letter of each pair are not also canonically >>equivalent. >compare �? with e�
The first pair has e trema as its first letter, the second pair e ogonek. Yet these pairs are canonical equivalent.
True in the way you interpret my sentence, but when I say the "first letter" of each pair, I mean the first non decomposable character of each pair. In your example, both letters are simple "e" vowels.
e-diaeresis is decomposable to e + combining diaeresis. e-ogonek-diaeresis is decomposable to e + combining diaeresis + combining ogonek or to e + combining ogonek + combining diaeresis. The last two are equivalent.
Both "dotted lowercase i" and "dotless lowercase i" are not decomposable... unlike "dotter uppercase I"...
small letter i and small letter dotless i are as different as t and thorn.
Well Outlook 2000 is unable to represent any e with ogonek and trema of your example.
Get a better browser. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
