From: Andy White (Andy__White@btinternet.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 19:27:56 EST
I once wrote:
> > My thoughts were to put a ZWNJ after the Ra to indicate that is not
> > to form a Reph e.g. Ra+ZWNJ+Virama+Ya = Ra+Jophola
> > Then I remembered that in some font designs, secondary forms such
> > as jophola can form a conjunct ligature with the preceding
> consonant.
> > I think that a ZWNJ would imply that Ra and Ya should not ligate.
James Kass said:
> Exactly. This would seem to work without breaking anything
> existing and would not mean extending the semantics of ZWNJ.
>
> Have you since changed your mind about this?
No!
This is an example of stating something that can be read in two ways -
unfortunatly you took an unintended meaning :-(
Re-iterating in reverse should get the point across, I hope:
I think that a ZWNJ would imply that Ra and Ya should not join together.
(ZWNonJoiner)
But I remembered that in some font designs Ra and Ya *do* join together
(they make a ligature.)
Therefore Ra+ZWNJ+Virama+Ya cannot represent Ra+Yaphalaa when they form
a ligature.
Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 05 2003 - 20:01:01 EST