From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 12:46:18 CST
At 10:26 AM 10/29/2003, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>The problem I see here is that ZWJ is not intended to create ligatures
>between diacritics, only between clusters that would otherwise still be a
>single combining sequence.
>Normally CGJ would have fitted better there, but this conflicts with the
>intent to address the canonical combining order with CGJ.
It also conflicts with the expectation that CGJ will *not* affect
rendering. ZWJ is intended to affect rendering, which is why it makes more
sense than CGJ, but I agree that, as currently defined, it does not seem to
be intended to create ligatures between combining marks. However, I recall
Paul Nelson at MS stating that they also needed ZWJ to work between
combining marks for another script (Khmer perhaps?). This suggests to me
that either the definition of ZWJ and ZWNJ needs to be revised, or a new
ZERO-WIDTH COMBINING MARK JOINER needs to be encoded.
While we're about it, we could propose a spacing, non-breaking ELIDED
CHARACTER for use in ketiv/qere where combining marks need to be applied to
empty space within a word.
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org
I sometimes think that good readers are as singular,
and as awesome, as great authors themselves.
- JL Borges
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST