From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 15:15:13 CST
On 29/10/2003 10:46, John Hudson wrote:
> 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
Or the definition of CGJ needs to be revised - unless of course there
are existing uses which conflict with this. The advantage of CGJ over
ZWJ is that the latter is defined as a base character.
> 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.
How would this differ from NBSP? Now if it were a right-to-left
character specifically for RTL scripts, that would help. But failing
that one can safely use <RLM, NBSP>.
> John Hudson
> Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
> Vancouver, BC email@example.com
> I sometimes think that good readers are as singular,
> and as awesome, as great authors themselves.
> - JL Borges
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST