I see what you see there, but the joined ij looks like a strangely-styled y with a diaeresis or umlaut over it. If you want it to be clear that this is /ij/ and not that other thing, I'd avoid.

http://typophile.com/node/58827
http://typophile.com/node/67294

Unfortunately at the moment images don’t show up in the linked threads.

the joined ij looks like a strangely-styled y with a diaeresis or umlaut over it

Which is the historical style: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/Leesplankje_van_Hoogeveen_...

The common form for /ij/ is more like a /u/ with a descending + curling right side…

I say go for it. :)

(That's coming from a non-Dutch reader.)

{To Follow}

It seems like if you made that join, you would want to also join the ti in the same way. Pretty soon you are going to be doing a full connected script! (do it!)

It’s an affectation that will puzzle the Dutch reader.

I figure if the standard formatting is i then j then the unconnected option is always available to them, but in a more display setting the user could choose to use the connected version if they so wished. I can't see it puzzling the Dutch reader any more than an st ligature puzzles an English reader. I just like the look of the connected version.

Nick, there are some super-funky "ij"s in the
Netherlands, so I doubt this one will faze them.

hhp

I can't see it puzzling the Dutch reader any more than an st ligature puzzles an English reader.

The Quaint ligatures st and ct do puzzle English readers, not in the sense of perplexing as to what characters they represent, but as to why such an affectation should have been used to frequently interrupt text.

…there are some super-funky "ij"s in the Netherlands,

But surely they are in type and lettering (especially scripts) that has a general funkiness, which this style doesn’t appear to.

It’s my opinion that for this particular typeface, an ij ligature would seem unwarranted and out of place to a Dutch reader.
But if the face also has some other quaints and oddities, maybe it would fit in.

At any rate, it could be a discretionary ligature, but if you make it default it would be sure to annoy typographers (and their clients) who might like the face but don’t think quaints are quite right for the job in hand.

Even in connecting script styles the upward stroke between /i/ and /j/ will look more like the /u/ form than the example shown. It is just too weird.

It is too weird. Quirky, cute, but not an ij. Like Bart says, the ij is a running-script thing too, and is basically a /u/-shaped /y/ with two dots.

Ok, I'm keeping it as an alternate. Because I like it. Is dlig best feature for this sort of thing?

Will there be other discretionary ligatures, and if so, do you anticipate that a user wanting those will want this one? If the answers are yes and maybe not, it might be better simply as a stylistic set.

That's kind of what I thought. There's Th and ry discretionary ligatures, and I might make some st sp ch ct ligatures too if I can make them not look stupid! I suppose a stylistic set is the way to go.

> It is [just] too weird.

This is where nativity kicks in, to correct assumers like me...
To rephrase something I've often said: without nativity, trying
to innovate is like Russian roulette.

hhp

I might make some st sp ch ct ligatures too if I can make them not look stupid!

http://typophile.com/files/dlig.JPG

The connected ij will be in a stylistic set. These are the dligs, for people who like that sort of thing...

Cannot get this img tag to work. Image is in first post.

Done it.
The sooner attach image is back up and running, the better!