Some nice person just said to me privately:
>Michael Everson wrote:
>> In my paper http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2317.pdf I raised
>> a lot of questions about exceptions and the use of these. I don't
>> think they were ever all answered.My other papers, N2141 and N2147,
>> show a number of examples of ligation which is not particularly
>> predictable. That's what ZWJ us supposed to be for.
>That's because some people (not to mention any ad-hominem names; there
>is more than one) are more interested in saying "This is a simple
>problem, and the rendering systems of the future (or my Mac today) will
>handle it automatically" than in answering the complex linguistic and
>orthographic questions you raised.
>Personally I think your ZERO-WIDTH LIGATOR papers are among the best of
>all your Unicode-related papers. I agreed with the decision to unify
>the ligation function with ZWJ rather than creating a new character, but
>your arguments about Latin, Greek, Runic, Old Hungarian, etc. ligation
>were thorough and unassailable.
Thank you, nice person. It's nice to know that someone else looked at
the argument and came up with the same conclusion that I did.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jul 01 2002 - 10:25:38 EDT