Re: ZWL, ZWNL no difference?

From: Robert A. Rosenberg (
Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 15:34:42 EST

At 09:52 AM 12/30/1999 -0800, wrote:
> In this
> scenario, processes like spell checking would not ignore ZWL.
> But, this has potential to end up in an ugly mess given no way
> to control users from forcing ligation using ZWL in cases of
> aesthetic, non-semantic ligation, with the result that spell
> checks, etc. don't work as they're supposed to.

Why should the spell-checker NOT ignore embedded ZW[N]Ls? They should be
using the canonical form of the string (including unligaturing pre-composed
codes] by ignoring these codepoints. My primary home spell-checker will
treats (if I remember correctly) ligatures in the same way it does accents.
I'll need to check what it says about o-ffi-ce tonight <g>.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT