From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 17:45:37 EST
On 09/02/2004 14:37, Peter Constable wrote:
>>From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
>>
>>
>On Behalf
>
>
>>Of Peter Kirk
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>>The UTC decided to allow ZWJ/ZWNJ to occur in combining character
>>>sequences.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Thank you. So I can do what I was wanting to do (Hebrew meteg
>>
>>
>combining
>
>
>>sequences) with a clear conscience!
>>
>>
>
>Well, perhaps there is a step that's needed to propose representations
>for the alternate positions of meteg, one of these making use of ZWJ or
>ZWNJ (whichever) and to get UTC to approve that so that it's formally a
>part of the standard and, hence, an interoperable representation.
>
>
>
>
I was always a bit confused about this aspect. I understand that there
is a bit more to using ZWJ/ZWNJ in this way than a private decision; but
it is one which has already been proposed and implemented by several
font providers. But I was told a few months ago in effect that Unicode
doesn't specify such things because they are the spelling conventions
for individual languages. Where is the boundary between an
"interoperable representation" to be agreed by the UTC and a spelling
convention to be left to individuals?
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 09 2004 - 18:29:53 EST