• threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I skimmed the article and not sure I understand the problem. Turkey has some additional glyphs variant of i. So what?

  • Matěȷ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think that Unicode implements Turkish wrong. I tried to make a proposal to Unicode, but, when I gave that for checking to someone involved in Unicode, I was told that such proposal would be futile because Unicode can’t break compatibility.

    Presently, there is a case pair of I where the small I is dotted, and the capital I is dotless, then there are separate dotless small I and dotted capital I. My proposal was that the common case pair of I would have unspecified dottedness, and there would be a separate case pair of dotted I and a pair of dotless I for Turkish.

    This was done with the idea that, in most languages, dottedness of I is just a typographic choice similar to the shape of small A. My proposal would enable fonts where small I is by default dotless like in the Carolingian minuscule but which support Turkish.

    • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Does Unicode define case pair relationships of glyphs? My understanding was that it doesn’t and in that case it doesn’t matter.l, right. But I’m sure I’m wrong :)

      Not sure I understand what you want these fonts to be able to do. Isn’t that already possible regardless of approach?