Re: ZWL, ZWNL no difference?

Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 16:02:30 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
> checks, etc. don't work as they're supposed to.

       BR>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>.

       The assumption in this scenario is that ZWL is used *only*
       where ligation makes a lexical distinction, i.e. is effectively
       a core part of the orthography; the ligature is being used to
       distinguish one lexical item from another; hence a dictionary
       would include, for example, both "wachstube" and
       "wachs<ZWL>tube" (or, alternately, both "wachs<ZWNL>tube" and
       "wachstube"). In the scenario I described, a ligature in
       "office" would not require ZWL to generate a ligature; it would
       appear automatically if the font supports it (and if the
       necessary font features are enabled - if ligation is not
       enabled by default).


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