Quoting Marion Gunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Scr�obh Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >Almost all languages using latin script. They use "i" with dot above, > >but not "ı" without. Turkish is the (almost) only language that has both > :-) > >... > > Irish in Roman script is written i with dot above, Irish in traditional > script is written i without dot above. The current flooding of our local > advertising and publishing markets by various non-native uncial fonts to > write our language goes against tradition in imposing on us that unwanted > dot. Is there any way at all that using Unicode can help support our > tradition? > mg
The dot in the Latin lower-case letter i is not a diacritical though; there is no diacritical in "icicle" or on the i in "bord g�is" (it is in Turkish, hence the distinction between i with and without dots for both capital and lower-case letters). The matter of pseudo-Irish script is a matter of glyph shape and outside of the scope of Unicode to amend. Even if Unicode considered the distinction to be significant it would still not be possible for Unicode to prevent poor �sthetic decisions such as this, any more than it can prevent cheesy back-to-front mock-Cyrillic R's in "The Hunt for Red October" or my bad handwriting. I agree with you that the pseudo-Irish script is unsightly, and i is not the most abused, though it does run the risk of being confused with �. However I suspect that a large number are not "non-native", but were in fact created here. -- Jon Hanna <http://www.hackcraft.net/> "�it has been truly said that hackers have even more words for equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people." - jargon.txt
