-----Original Message-----
><sarcasm type="mild">
>Okay, I can think of three solutions.
>
>1. A rendering engine that snips off the dot prior to combining a
>diacritical. Font manufacturers would have to keep their dots within
>certain bounds, or risk LATIN SMALL LETTER J WITH HALF-DOT ABOVE or LATIN
>SMALL LETTER LOWER LOOP OF J.
No, this is nonsense, or a ultra low end solution at best
>2. Users of languages that require accented j would make or commision fonts
>with U+006A dotless (a "glyph variant"). When they wrote in, say, English,
>they would combine it with U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE, and hope that no one
>would ever search or sort it.
Almost, the j with dot glyph will probably still be there. Sorting and
searching, again you do
not on the glyphs in a font, but on characters, which are two totally
different domains (which
happen to look like each other in English and Chinese, but not in Arabic or
Devanagari,
and differ in the treatment of j)
>3. Dotless j could go in the private use area, and all the users of
>languages that required accented j could agree on where.
Please not.
>4. As long as they are using the private use area, they might as well
>precompose all their j combinations. In fact, they could put their entire
>alphabet there, pre-empt the Windows Symbol block, and use out-of-the-box
>US Windows (as long as they didn't mind the rest of it not being
>localized).
And loose any benefit they could ever have from Unicode. It is costly to be
obstinate sometimes.
>I hope I'm starting to see the logic of all this....
Maybe the Unicode standard book can help you, it has some nice
explanations...
Jeroen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT