From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2003 - 19:04:17 EST
At 00:35 +0100 2003-12-17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >>NO. There's no canonical equivalence between distinct pairs of
> >>characters, if the first letter of each pair are not also canonically
> >>equivalent.
> >
>> compare ë? with e¨
>>
>> The first pair has e trema as its first letter, the second pair e ogonek.
>> Yet these pairs are canonical equivalent.
>
>True in the way you interpret my sentence, but when I say the "first letter"
>of each pair, I mean the first non decomposable character of each pair. In
>your example, both letters are simple "e" vowels.
e-diaeresis is decomposable to e + combining
diaeresis. e-ogonek-diaeresis is decomposable to
e + combining diaeresis + combining ogonek or to
e + combining ogonek + combining diaeresis. The
last two are equivalent.
>Both "dotted lowercase i" and "dotless lowercase i" are not decomposable...
>unlike "dotter uppercase I"...
small letter i and small letter dotless i are as different as t and thorn.
>Well Outlook 2000 is unable to represent any e with ogonek and trema of your
>example.
Get a better browser.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 20:01:27 EST