> Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this will not work, as vowel reordering must
> > happen, and will not if ZWNJ or ZWNBSP is included. [...]
> But ZWJ and ZWNJ should be the way to go for this kind of things, especially
> since they have been recently promoted to also represent ZWL and ZWNL
> (zero-width [non] ligator).
> It is very unfortunate that ZWNJ prevents Indic vowel reordering in this
> In ordinary cases, a ZW[N]J inside a consonant cluster does not prevent
> matra reordering. E.g., in Devanagari:
> U+0915, U+094D, U+200C, U+0915, U+093F (ka, virama, ZWNJ, ka, i
> is regularly reordered around the cluster:
> 093F, 0915, 094D, 200D, 0915 (i matra, ka, virama, ZWNJ, ka)
> and rendered with this sequence of glyphs:
> i_matra, ka_nominal, virama, ka_nominal
I am not sure this is the only way to interpret the use of ZWNJ here.
Another way would be to consider the sequence ka+halant to be a separate
syllable, and then ka+i to be a second syllable. Then, the correct
rendering would be
ka_nominal, virama, i_matra, ka_nominal
BTW, Microsoft's Uniscribe chooses the latter way.
Similarly (and this is perhaps linked), CDAC's engine chooses the same
"solution" for the ISCII-91 explicit halant (coded with two consecutive
> It would be nice if the possibility of reordering matras around a ZW[N]J
> could be generalized, e.g. if:
> U+0915, U+200C, U+093F (ka, ZWNJ, i matra)
> would regularly reorders as:
> 093F, 0915, 200C (i matra, ka, ZWNJ)
> producing the following sequence of glyphs
> i_matra, ka
> The ZWNJ would simply be there to prevent a hypothetical single-glyph
What is the point?
Since (in the general case of a non-fixed typeface where glyphs are not
always of the same width) the i_matra have to adapt itself to the glyph
of the consonant, the usual form is merely
Do you want to prevent this adaptation as well? If yes, what rendering should
it looks like (depending of the font, the "default" i_matra varies greatly).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT