Chris Fynn asked:
>[...] For example in Roman translitteration of Indic
>languages the digraph "kh" or "Kh" occurs [...]
>[...] Should this be entered as
> <k> <zero width joiner> <h> <combining low line>?
Kenneth Whistler replied:
>The purpose of the ZERO WIDTH JOINER is not to create arbitrary
>text elements out of some sequence of characters. It is to create
>the appropriate context for the visual rendition of cursively joined
>forms of glyphs (or, under the latest UTC decision, cues for the choice
>of ligated forms from fonts).
Does the last sentence (in parentheses) mean that ZWL (zero-width ligator,
proposed by Michael Everson) has been unified with ZWJ (zero-width joiner)?
And what happened with the proposal of a ZWNL (zero-width non ligator), that
popped up in that old discussion? Any decison as been made whether to encode
it and how?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:59 EDT