I've been reading Michael Everson's documents for WG2 (N2141 and N2147)
making the case for a zero-width ligator character. From the Pipeline
table, I see that the proposal was rejected by the UTC in February.
Now that I have at least one persuasive side of the story (Everson's),
I'd like to know what the UTC's reasoning was for rejecting the ZWL
proposal. What alternatives are envisioned for indicating ligatures?
Will U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER be used to indicate optional ligation,
will it be handled through external markup, or do we need to rely on
precomposed ligature "characters" such as those in the U+FBxx block?
I'm sure this was discussed at great length on the unicore list, but
it would be nice to hear "in public" how this was resolved.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT