On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Maybe it would help if you run the strings through normalize() first? > I'm not sure if that can combine combining characters.
I think the similarity between Latin combining characters and these ideographic variations might end there. I don't think there is a single codepoint version of U&'\+003436' || U&'\+0E0101', unlike é. This system is for controlling small differences in rendering for the "same" character[1]. My computer doesn't even show the OP's example glyphs as different (to my eyes, at least; I can see on a random picture I found[2] that the one with the e0101 selector is supposed to have a ... what do you call that ... a tiny gap :-)). [1] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr37/tr37-14.html [2] https://glyphwiki.org/wiki/u3436
