Sorry to answer my own post, but I mis-read some parts of the Unicode
Standard and I have no desire to let things in the wrong state (since
the matter is pretty arcane).
> And on the other hand, ZWJ should otherwise retains its normal behaviour, which
> is described page 215 as (sorry, I quote from memory) preventing use of specific
> ligature or cluster when available.
In fact, the book reads as "present" rather than "prevent". It took me several
hours to realise that I was wrong. So I have to stand corrected here.
> So, [...] it appears that when applied to Tamil, the sequence
> XA + ZWJ + AIvs
Consequently, the above was wrong and it should read as
XA + ZWNJ + AIvs
> (where XA is any consonant of NNA, NNNA, LA and LLA) _could_ be interpreted as
> preventing the use of the elephant-trunk form of ai, without breaking previous
In other words, I (now) completely agree with Marco's point of view.
> Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > I don't know how these rules extend to other Indic scipts. I think that #2
> > is general, while #1 only makes sense for other scripts having "half
> > consonants" (e.g. Gujarati).
> Even Tamil, with its alone ligature KSSA, is affected: what is your
> expectation of the rendering of Tamil KA + VIRAMA + ZWJ + SSA ?
> I expect it to prevent the ligature, so to appear as
> KA_with_pulli SSA, exactely the same as KA + VIRAMA + ZWNJ + SSA.
After reflexion, I do not believe this will conform. Better render it
with the ligature, i.e. different from the second sequence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT