Case for letters j and J with acute

[Leo Broukhis]

It isn't just a font rendering issue. U+0133 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE IJ
doesn't have Soft_Dotted property according to
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCD/latest/ucd/PropList.txt



On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2016, at 11:18, ACJ Unicode <unicode at acjs.net> wrote:
>
>> This is taught in writing in primary school in the Netherlands (or at least it was 30 years ago), but this practice is often abandoned soon afterwards, probably because of the technical difficulty. The only way to achieve this digitally appears to have LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH ACUTE (U+00ED) be followed by LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J (U+0237) and COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT (U+0301).
>
> It is a font rendering issue. A pre-composed j́ will not be added to the standard.
>
>>       • It makes casual user input highly impractical;
>
> This is dependent on the keyboard layout, not the encoding.
>
>>       • it adds complexity to automating the process of adding emphasis to vowels;
>>       • technical support is understandably lacking;
>
> True, but for technical reasons pre-composed characters will NOT be added to the standard.
>
>>       • LATIN SMALL LETTER J WITH ACUTE;
>>       • LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J WITH ACUTE.
>
> This just won’t ever happen.
>
>>       • it makes it virtually impossible for type designers to address properly and consistently.
>
> Well, the specification should be í (or i + combining acute) + j + combining acute. Neither dotless i nor dotless j would be correct.
>
>> For completeness sake, one could also make a case for the following:
>>
>>       • LATIN SMALL LIGATURE IJ WITH ACUTES;
>>       • LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE IJ WITH ACUTES.
>
> Or IJ (or ij) + combining double acute.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>