From: Mark Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 08 2003 - 20:09:41 EST
I agree with the first part of your analysis. By the phrase "requesting ligation
of combining characters" it is unclear to me what you mean, and whether that is
the right solution to whatever problem you are referring to.
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <email@example.com>
To: "Mark Davis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Unicode List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sat, 2003 Nov 08 16:09
Subject: Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ, CGJ and combination
> On 08/11/2003 15:52, Mark Davis wrote:
> > The UTC just approved a clarification of the base character
> > definition, as follows:
> Thank you, Mark. This clarification is useful.
> So I conclude that ZWJ and ZWNJ, General Category Cf, are not graphic
> characters and so neither base characters nor combining characters.
> Therefore, according to definition D17 (in TUS 4.0 section 3.6, I assume
> this has not been amended), these characters cannot form part of a
> combining character sequence. Therefore they cannot be appropriate for
> forming ligatures between combining characters within such a sequence.
> Is that correct?
> CGJ, however, has General Category Mn, and so is a combining character
> and can form part of a combining character sequence. But, according to
> section 15.2, "inserting a combining grapheme joiner between two
> characters should have no effect on their ligation or cursive joining
> So, is there any other mechanism for requesting ligation of combining
> characters within the same combining character sequence? If not, there
> is a need to propose such a mechanism, for Hebrew. I will post details
> to the Hebrew list.
> Peter Kirk
> firstname.lastname@example.org (personal)
> email@example.com (work)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 08 2003 - 20:42:15 EST