From: Arcane Jill (arcanejill@ramonsky.com)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 11:03:34 EST
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:verdy_p@wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:15 PM
> To: Unicode@Unicode.Org
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 11:50:29 EST