From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 20:58:24 CDT
> Since INVISIBLE LETTER is spacing, wouldn't it make more sense to define
Isn't rather INVISIBLE LETTER *non-spacing* (zero-width minimum), even
though it is *not combining* ?
I mean here that its width would be zero unless a visible diacritic expands
it. It is then distinct from other whitespaces which have a non-zero minimum
width, but still expand too with a diacritic above them (width expansion is
normally part of the job for the renderer or positioning/ligating tables of
characters in fonts).
I would expect that an INVISIBLE LETTER not followed by any diacritic will
*really* be invisible, and will not alter the positioning of subsequent base
characters (and would not even prevent their kerning into the previous base
letter such as in <CAPITAL LETTER V, INVISIBLE LETTER, CAPITAL LETTER A>,
where A can still kern onto the baseline below V.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 14 2004 - 20:59:07 CDT