[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: composite characters and dotless ones
Right, and this explains why there is no dotlessj even though there
is a jcircumflex. Their view is that jcircumlex is j + circumflex,
not doltessj + circumflex. Bummer.
I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but in Unicode the canonical
decomposition of, for example
Indeed, page 6-7 explicitly states that these combinations give two
distinct characters. Further, it states that in cases where the dot
is preserved and the diacritic is added above the dot, the
decomposition is as a double diacritic:
Such decomposition is necessary and for many purposes the canonical
Unicode one is the only correct one; its being "wrong" for making a
composite glyph is, of course, irrelevant to Unicode itself (but not
to typesetting applications that process Unicode documents).