On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 07:40:04AM -0700, Jeroen Hellingman wrote:
> The semantics of both i and j should be that
> they loose their dots if you put an accent on top of them, so there never
> should be a problem.
How do you make a j lose its dot if you do not have a dotless j available?
I don't get it. It would seem to make sense to me to bend the rules in this
case and have a dotless j even if it is a glyph and not a character used
by any language.
If we really want to convince all programmers to use Unicode, we can hardly
insist that they add low level code to every single program they write to
remove the dot from the j by directly manipulating the fonts.
Wouldn't it be considerably simpler to just add a dotless j to the Unicode
standard so that font designers become motivated to include it in the
fonts?
Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT