Yes, precisely. It's the combining behaviour that matters, not the distinction between the two slightly different low lines.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]>wrote: > 2012-10-09 20:32, Bill Poser wrote: > > No, I was contrasting the behaviour of s followed by U+0332, for which >> there is no precomposed letter, with U+1E95, which is the precomposed >> equivalent of z followed by U+0332. >> > > You meant to write “followed by U+0331” at the end. But in any case, this > is a matter of contrasting a letter followed by a combining diacritic (a > “decomposed letter”) with a precomposed character. You could equally well > have contrasted U+0332 with its canonical decomposition; in HTML terms, > > ẕ<br> > z̲ > > These render differently (except on Firefox), when e.g. Courier New is > used. > > Yucca > > > > >
