Dedotted I and dotlessi

Richard Wordingham richard.wordingham at
Mon Aug 17 17:59:46 CDT 2020

On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:59:14 -0600
Bobby de Vos via Unicode <unicode at> wrote:

> A particular workflow might be enhanced to handle, for example, U+093F
> DEVANAGARI VOWEL SIGN I where the glyph for this character is
> re-ordered compared to the codepoints. I don't see how a workflow
> would be able to handle [1] where in Kannada script, codepoints are
> re-ordered to handle changing conventions in encoding. That is, the
> codepoints are re-ordered before mapping to glyphs, so two different
> sequences of codepoints will produce the same glyph stream, IIUC.

> [1]

Well, if the reordering is done by the shaping engine, it would be
difficult.  (There are moves afoot to move Indian Indic rendering to
the USE, in which case they might reach the font.)  However, in this
case I would view the rearrangement as akin to canonical equivalence,
where there is no guarantee that copying a string won't change its

However, I suspect a Graphite font could leave no trace of virama and
ZWJ in Sinhala script touching conjuncts.  In Graphite, glyphs can
have state, so touching conjunction could be implemented as a type of


More information about the Unicode mailing list