>At 09:52 AM 12/30/1999 -0800, email@example.com wrote:
> In this
> scenario, processes like spell checking would not
> But, this has potential to end up in an ugly mess
given no way
> to control users from forcing ligation using ZWL in
> 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