It isn't just a font rendering issue. U+0133 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE IJ doesn't have Soft_Dotted property according to http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCD/latest/ucd/PropList.txt
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Michael Everson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 Feb 2016, at 11:18, ACJ Unicode <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is taught in writing in primary school in the Netherlands (or at least >> it was 30 years ago), but this practice is often abandoned soon afterwards, >> probably because of the technical difficulty. The only way to achieve this >> digitally appears to have LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH ACUTE (U+00ED) be >> followed by LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J (U+0237) and COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT >> (U+0301). > > It is a font rendering issue. A pre-composed j́ will not be added to the > standard. > >> • It makes casual user input highly impractical; > > This is dependent on the keyboard layout, not the encoding. > >> • it adds complexity to automating the process of adding emphasis to >> vowels; >> • technical support is understandably lacking; > > True, but for technical reasons pre-composed characters will NOT be added to > the standard. > >> • LATIN SMALL LETTER J WITH ACUTE; >> • LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J WITH ACUTE. > > This just won’t ever happen. > >> • it makes it virtually impossible for type designers to address >> properly and consistently. > > Well, the specification should be í (or i + combining acute) + j + combining > acute. Neither dotless i nor dotless j would be correct. > >> For completeness sake, one could also make a case for the following: >> >> • LATIN SMALL LIGATURE IJ WITH ACUTES; >> • LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE IJ WITH ACUTES. > > Or IJ (or ij) + combining double acute. > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ > >
