Kent,
No, 20D7 is not a Diacritic, it is Other_Math, therefore the dot should remain.
In general, mathematical combining characters are not diacritics.
Renderers that treat "combining" as a synonym for "diacritic" and
remove the dot are in error.
UAX 44 says, "Characters that linguistically modify the meaning of
another character to which they apply. Some diacritics are not
combining characters, and some combining characters are not
diacritics."
Leo
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Kent Karlsson
<kent.karlsson14_at_telia.com> wrote:
>
> Den 2012-08-01 19:41, skrev "Andreas Prilop" <prilop4321_at_trashmail.net>:
>
>
>> Is it correct that
>>
>> U+0069 U+20D7
>> U+006A U+20D7
>>
>> should have a dot
>
> No, they are soft-dotted:
> 0069..006A ; Soft_Dotted # L& [2] LATIN SMALL LETTER I..LATIN SMALL
> LETTER J
> which means that the inherent dot should be removed if a diacritic above the
> letter
> is added, which it is in your examples. However, I have yet to see a system
> that
> handles this correctly...
Received on Wed Aug 01 2012 - 20:15:04 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 01 2012 - 20:15:06 CDT