Why does Unicode implement the Turkish I the way it does? - unicode

Question

Turkish has dotted and dotless I as two separate characters, each with their own uppercase and lowercase forms.
Uppercase Lowercase
I U+0049 ı U+0131
İ U+0130 i U+0069
Whereas in other languages using the Latin alphabet, we have
Uppercase Lowercase
I U+0049 i U+0069
Now, The Unicode Consortium could have implemented this as six different characters, each with its own casing rules, but instead decided to use only four, with different casing rules in different locales. This seems rather odd to me. What was the rationale behind that decision?
A possible implementation with six different characters:
Uppercase Lowercase
I U+0049 i U+0069
I NEW ı U+0131
İ U+0130 i NEW
Codepoints currently used:
U+0049 ‹I› \N{LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I}
U+0130 ‹İ› \N{LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE}
U+0131 ‹ı› \N{LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I}
U+0069 ‹i› \N{LATIN SMALL LETTER I}

Answer 1

There is one theoretical and one practical reason.
The theoretical one is that the i of most Latin-script alphabets and the i of the Turkish and Azerbaijani alphabets are the same, and again the I of most Latin-script alphabets and the I of the Turkish and Azerbaijani are the same. The alphabets differ in the relationship between those too. One could easily enough argue that they are in fact different (as your proposed encoding treats them) but that's how the Language Commission considered them in defining the alphabet and orthography in the 1920s in Turkey, and Azerbaijani use in the 1990s copied that.
(In contrast, there are Latin-based scripts for which i should be considered semantically the same as i though never drawn with a dot [just use a different font for differently shaped glyphs], particularly those that date before Carolingian or which derive from one that is, such as how Gaelic script was derived from Insular script. Indeed, it's particularly important never to write Irish in Gaelic script with a dot on the i that could be compared with the sí buailte diacritic of the orthography that was used with it. Sadly many fonts attempting this script make not only add a dot, but make the worse orthographical error of making it a stroke and hence confusable with the fada diacritic, which as it could appear on an i while the sí buailte could not, and so makes the spelling of words appear wrong. There are probably more "Irish" fonts with this error than without).
The practical reason is that existing Turkish character encodings such as ISO/IEC 8859-9, EBCDIC 1026 and IBM 00857 which had common subsets with either ASCII or EBCDIC already treated i and I as the same as those in ASCII or EBCDIC (that is to say, those in most Latin script alphabets) and ı and İ as separate characters which are their case-changed equivalents; exactly as Unicode does now. Compatibility with such scripts requires continuing that practice.

Answer 2

Another practical reason for that implementation is that doing otherwise would create a great confusion and difficulty for Turkish keyboard layout users.
Imagine it was implemented the way you suggested, and pressing the ıI key and the iİ key on Turkish keyboards produced Turkish-specific Unicode characters. Then, even though Turkish keyboard layout otherwise includes all ASCII/Basic Latin characters (e.g. q, w, x are on the keyboard even though they are not in the Turkish alphabet), one character would have become impossible to type. So, for example Turkish users wouldn't be able to visit wikipedia.org, because what they actually typed would be w�k�ped�a.org. Maybe web browsers could implement a workaround specifically for Turkish users, but think of the other use cases and heaps non-localized applications that would become difficult to use. Perhaps Turkish keyboard layout could add an additional key to become ASCII-complete again, so that there are three keys, i.e. ıI, iİ, iI. But it would be a pointless waste of a key in an already crowded layout and would be even more confusing, so Turkish users would need to think which one is appropriate in every context: "I am typing a user name, which tend to expect ASCII characters, so use the iI key here", "When creating my password with the i character, did I use the iI key or the iİ key?"
Due to a myriad of such problems, even if Unicode included Turkish-specific i and I characters, most likely the keyboard layouts would ignore it and continue to use regular ASCII/Basic Latin characters, so the new characters would be completely unused and moot. Except they would still probably occasionally come up in places and create confusion, so it's a good thing that they didn't go that route.