From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 11:28:43 EST
On 08/11/2003 17:09, Mark Davis wrote:
>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 ◄
What I mean is a mechanism for doing what ZWJ is defined to do, from TUS
> Joiner. U+200D is intended to produce a more
> connected rendering of
> adjacent characters than would otherwise be the case, if possible. In
> • If the two characters could form a ligature but do not normally, ZWJ
> that the ligature be used.
> • Otherwise, if either of the characters could cursively connect but
> do not normally,
> ZWJ requests that each of the characters take a cursive-connection form
> where possible.
- but in a case where the adjacent characters are combining characters
associated with the same base character (and I am thinking of ligation
rather than cursive connection). If ZWJ cannot be part of a combining
character sequence, I infer that it would not be suitable for this
function, although I would be happy to be corrected.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 12:09:40 EST