3 ms·
Yeah, the part of the Unicode standard that talks about case-mapping and how you might want to do it differently in Turkish has a strong undertone of "of course
by rspeer 11y ago
Yeah, the part of the Unicode standard that talks about case-mapping and how you might want to do it differently in Turkish has a strong undertone of "of course you aren't really going to do this".
There's almost a solution you could hack in if you could convince people and input methods to stop using plain-ASCII "i" and "I" in Turkish (which is quite a hurdle). You can stick a combining dot on the "i", which doesn't change its appearance, but now it uppercases correctly. But there's no "combining lack of dot" you can put on "I" to make it lowercase correctly.
- pluma 11y agoThe obvious parallel are modifiers in other language. For example, umlauts in German can be considered as the regular letters A, O and U with diacritics[0]. In the same way, if the Turkish dotless upper case I was encoded as a separate letter from Capital Latin Letter I, Turkish ı could receive a "dot above" modifier to become i and Turkish I could receive the same modifier to become İ. [0]: I'm German, so I'm aware that it's a bit more complex than that, but although we have separate "letters" for Ä, Ö and Ü, they're really just AE, OE and UE ligatures, respectively. You could argue that they're not because replacing them with the non-ligature version changes meaning but thanks to modern technology (and historical domain name restrictions) most Germans can deal with that kind of ambiguity just fine. Besides, the diaeresis in German umlauts is actually a vestigial lower case "e" (as can be seen in old manuscripts).