John Jenkins wrote:
> For me, the AAT and OpenType mechanisms adequately answer this point, as
> they allow full control over arbitrary (or automatic) ligature generation or
> overriding.
I begin to suspect that people are talking past one another here. Allow
full control to whom, using what? AFAIU (and I may not understand far
enough), OpenType allows control to the font designer, not to the document
author/transcriber. It is the latter for whom ZWL/ZWNL caters.
> I'm still trying to figure out what I would consider adequate reasons for
> requiring ligation control in plain text. I haven't seen them proposed yet,
> however.
In cases where it is incorrect to ligate, though the default says to do
so; or it is incorrrect not to ligate, though the default says not to.
A hypothetical example: suppose there are certain words in Arabiform text where
lam followed by alef must appear, but *without* ligation. How would that be
represented in Unicode? Because it is a matter of correctness/legibility,
it is a plain-text distinction.
(There may be no such words, but that doesn't affect my current subpoint.)
--Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT