From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 17:35:52 EST
Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
>> ... I don't see why this needs to be an atomic character instead of
>> some combination of t, CGJ, h, and either U+0337 or U+0338.
> Not CGJ please. That should not be used to affect the rendering of a
> character; and indeed attempts to use it in this way are likely to
> fail with much present software (see my 24 February posting to the
> Unicode Hebrew list). ZWJ might be suitable.
You're right, this is not what CGJ is for. My apologies. However, I
wonder if ZWJ would suggest some sort of th-ligature, which is also not
what is desired here (a th-ligature is not the same as a th with
strikethrough, even if different authors or publishers have used them to
mean the same thing). Maybe some research is needed.
BTW, I don't generally agree that a Unicode character that is not yet
supported by "much present software" should be avoided on principle,
especially if the alternatives are to use another character that is not
appropriate but "looks better" (note that Peter did *not* suggest this),
or to propose a precomposed character.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 18:13:32 EST