IJ – special Form


I have some questions about the correct setup/naming of Unicodes and the coding of the NLD-IJ features. (Yes, there is a great tutorial, I’m just not sure if I understood it and if it’s right.)

  1. IJ (uni 0132) is not really needed, right?

2a. If I want to create a stylistically adapted variant for the IJ (not ij), then as “I_J.loclNLD” (and I_J.loclNLD.sc and Iacute_J.loclNLD etc.)? (See simulation/sketch with Helvetica.)

2b. Does this cause the IJ to be replaced by the “ligature”/variant in the normal NLD text, but to be split up into its “standard forms” in text with increased spacing? Or should I put this IJ-variant in a style set? (And what would be the correct naming?)

I am confused …

I_J.loclNLD and IJ. Do both, and make them look the same (one the component of the other).

OK thanks, I did. Now all IJ/ij are doubled. So it should work! Or what do you think?

But unfortunately I (still) get the following message when automatically generating the locl-feature:
Error: “language-specific behavior already specified (text was “NLD”)” in feature locl in line: 42
[ Glyphs Version 2.6.2 (1264) ]

Any idea what could be wrong with that?

Take a look at the code.

The following was generated automatically:


I don’t understand where the mistake is!?

1 Like

Sorry, but I can’t find the error/problem: if the locl feature is generated automatically, the same error message still appears and I don’t understand where the problem is - because Glyphs generates the code itself!

It would be great if someone could give me a tip - or solve the problem! :slight_smile:

What is ij.loclNLD? An der what is the difference to ij? And why is there a Dutch dieresis?

Good questions … :wink:

The Dieresis was remnant of an old ij version. Deleted!

ij.loclNLD and ij I packed in for completeness and stringency. Was probably a clever thought, but badly done or senseless. Deleted!

Now everything is fine.
Thanks a lot!

1 Like