Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ, CGJ and combination

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 11:28:43 EST

  • Next message: Simon Butcher: "RE: Hexadecimal digits?"

    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
    section 15.2:

    > Joiner. U+200D    is intended to produce a more
    > connected rendering of
    > adjacent characters than would otherwise be the case, if possible. In
    > particular:
    > • If the two characters could form a ligature but do not normally, ZWJ
    > requests
    > 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 (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 12:09:40 EST