[KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss]

["Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>]

From: KNAPPEN@VKPMZD.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 13:30:13 +0100
Subject: Re: psnfss and lw35nfss
To: s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk, tex-font@math.utah.edu
X-VMS-To: MZDMZA::IN%"s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk"
X-VMS-Cc: IN"tex-font@math.utah.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Knappen writes:

> Sebastian:

> > do people think its vital to get it done?

> I think, having a dotless j is vital. It has been in the standadr TeX glyph 
> set for 15 years, and I need it from time to time to typeset some text in 
> esperanto.

Well the UNICODE people have decided there is no such character as `dotlessj'
in any language. The closest are `dotlessjdash' and `dotlessjinverteddash'.

The fact that it has been in CM fonts is about as significant 
as that the `currency' symbol has been in Adobe fonts.

It's only use is as a base for making composites/accented characters.
And these - like jcircumflex - should be in the font as glyphs
in their own right (as they are in WGL4 fonts or `Latin' fonts like 
Lucida Bright Latin, Lucida Sans Latin and Lucida Sans Typewriter Latin).

Note that in distinction, dotlessi is in UNICODE - not because it can
be used as the base for various accented characters - but because it
is a glyph in its own right in Turkish.  Whereas no language uses
dotlessj.  Correct me (and the ISO 10646 and UNICODE folks) if I am
wrong.

Regards, Berthold.