From: Sandeep Srivastava (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 28 2006 - 03:29:26 CST
On 1/27/06, Andreas Prilop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Sandeep Srivastava wrote:
> > How can I force
> You cannot force, says Mahatma Gandhi.
Thanks Andreas. I respect Mahatma Gandhi too, and therefore, no forcing...
> 'a' and 'e' to get combined so that it is displayed as the
> > ligature 'ae'? The ZWJ doesn't work here??
> "æ" is a character of its own - not just a ligature.
Right. And that I know. I was wondering, if ZWJ can be used to create
ligatures as well, because in theory, ligatures too can be called as
composite characters. So, if I understand you correctly, ligatures are full
blown characters, and that they cannot be created using the individual
characters they represent in any way.
> I also found that every script has a different 'combining mark' to combine
> > characters. For example, U+09CD is the combining mark used for the
> > script, and U+094D is the combining mark used for the Hindi script.
> That's not a "combining mark". A combining mark is something like
> candrabindu or anusvara or the vowels in Indic scripts:
Well, then I fail to understand, how does the two indic characters 'स' (
U+0938) and 'त' (U+0924) get combined as 'स्त' (note the first character
gets broken in half to get combined with the second one) when using the
halant (U+094D) -- i.e. using the sequence "U+0938 U+094D U+0924"
So, isn't it then right to say the halant (U+094D) is a joiner -- that joins
> If that's the case, then what is the use of ZWJ?
> The zero-width joiner ZWJ is mainly used with the Arabic script. See
> for some examples. The ZWJ has some limited use with Indic scripts:
Right. I understand this point. I was trying to find out the boundary of the
ZWJ -- how far can it go to combine characters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 28 2006 - 03:31:36 CST