[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: bkph@ai.mit.edu*Subject*: composite characters and dotless ones*From*: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>*Date*: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:54:11 GMT*Cc*: tex-font@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-Reply-To*: <199702041652.LAA15035@kauai.ai.mit.edu>*References*: <199702041652.LAA15035@kauai.ai.mit.edu>

I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but in Unicode the canonical decomposition of, for example <iacute(003D)> is <i(0069)>+<acute(0301)> not <dotlessi(0131)><acute(0301)> . 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: <i(0069)>+<overdot(0307)><acute(0301)> hmmmm. 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). chris

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: composite characters and dotless ones***From:*"Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>

**References**:**[BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG: Re: [KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss]]***From:*"Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Next by Date:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Prev by thread:
**[BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG: Re: [KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss]]** - Next by thread:
**Re: composite characters and dotless ones** - Index(es):