RE: Questions on ZWNBS - for line initial holam plus alef

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 07:24:41 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: [hebrew] Re: Roadmap---Mandaic, Early Aramaic, Samaritan"

    > > If this is indeed "The standard way to do what you want", then the
    > > standard needs to make it clear that the sequence of
    > <space, combining
    > > mark> or <NBSP, combining mark> has the properties which I
    > want, i.e. it
    > > has the width of the combining mark alone, and not the full
    > width of a
    > > space,
    > This is up to the implementation and the font, and is not something
    > that the Unicode Standard should mandate, IMO. This steps over the
    > bound of the plain text content.

    I may agree with that, but id does not answer the questions I had
    How should a freestanding double diacritic be encoded (for purposes of
    meta-discussions, and the like): <SPACE, dbl diacritic> or <SPACE, dbl
    diacritic, SPACE>? How should combining characters (spacing as well
    as non-spacing) that are not vertically centered *roughly* be displayed,
    e.g. <SPACE, right-side combining character>, should that *roughly*
    be displayed with or without a typographic void to the left of it? So
    if I want a space (though not an overgrown one), should one use
    <SPACE, SPACE, right-side combining character>? Or even <SPACE,
    ZWSP, SPACE, right-side combining character>, to prevent "space
    And similarly for left-side combining characters. Likewise for defective
    combining sequences. If I want a visible pseudo-base, a dotted ring, or
    underline, the answers are fairly clear, using a suitable character as a
    base. But not for the cases above. I don't think that should entirely up
    to each font (maker), without any recommendation. (A "should" rather
    than a "shall" is quite sufficient.)

                    /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 08:01:20 EDT