It doesn't add any value to insert joiners. Just add the IDS itself to the
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <email@example.com>
To: "Unicode List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:21
Subject: Re: Unicode 3.1: IDS and ZW(N)J
> John Jenkins wrote:
> > [B]ut in
> > any event the basic stance we've taken in the past has consistently been
> > that there is no expectation that IDSs will *ever* be rendered as single
> > glyphs.
> That is not what the Unicode Standard 3.0 says. It says that an IDS
> may be rendered either as a sequence of glyphs or as a single glyph.
> Allowing ZWNJ will prevent such rendering; allowing ZWJ will encourage
> such rendering in fonts which can do it.
> This actually doesn't require any magic processing during rendering,
> except to add IDS sequences with ZWJ in them to font ligaturing tables,
> as Unicode 3.1 now requires in joining scripts (Arabic, etc.)
> It is more a matter of not forcing conformant IDS processors to treat
> a sequence with a joiner in it as two separate sequences.
> > Even allowing that smart font technology might make it possible
> > to render them with single glyphs, I think they should be processed in
> > the same fashion as (say) combining character sequences. We don't allow
> > for a joiner between an e and an acute accent. If the system can render
> > that CSS as a single glyph, then it can and that's as much as need be
> Granted. But the word "ligature" is not used there, whereas it is
> explicitly so used on page 271.
> There is / one art || John Cowan <email@example.com>
> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
> to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:18 EDT