From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 09:46:54 EDT
On 31/07/2003 03:55, Kent Karlsson wrote:
>No, I think ZWJ may be exactly the way to go here.
><consonant, holam, (accent), ZWJ, alef/vav> for making a 'ligature'
>(of sorts, in a technical sence) where the holam is displayed on the
>alef or vav. Without the ZWJ, the holam would be displayed on the
><consonant> to which it logically belongs. (alef and vav are base
>characters, so the ZWJ is not breaking any combining sequence here.)
> /kent k
This is an interesting idea, but I don't think it quite works. The
decision whether to shift holams on to a following alef or vav is not
something to be decided on a per occurrence basis but enforced on all
renderers. Rather, it is a rendering decision which should be applied
consistently, depending on context, through a whole document or style.
So it is not something to be encoded, but something which should depend
on the font etc.
The distinction which does need to be encoded is between holam male and
vav followed by holam, as many (though not all) renderers want to make
this distinction but they can only do so if there is an encoding
difference. It would certainly be an option to encode holam male as vav
- ZWJ - holam or vav - CGJ - holam. But if this holam is to be encoded
before the vav, the ZWJ is redundant.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 10:44:01 EDT