Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ and VS in Latin and other Greek-derived scripts

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 18:18:51 CST

  • Next message: Ruszlan Gaszanov: "RE: ZWJ, ZWNJ and VS in Latin and other Greek-derived scripts"

    On Jan 25, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Ruszlan Gaszanov wrote:

    > Richard Wordingham wrote:
    >> In general, the effects of ZWJ and ZWNJ are optional. Thus if I
    >> use ZWJ in
    >> 'Caesar', it is up to the rendering system as to whether I see
    >> something
    >> like 'C¾sar'. (In some scripts, ZWJ and ZWNJ do have effects that
    >> are
    >> mandatory on rendering systems.)
    > Uh, ok... and how about making those effects mandatory for Latin/
    > Greek/Cyrillic etc. too?

    It is *precisely* this suggestion which makes Latin/Greek/Cyrillic
    typographers faint in horror. *Forbidding* ligation in certain
    contexts where it is linguistically inappropriate isn't so bad as
    making ligature formation *mandatory*. (Other scripts are different
    in this regard, I hasten to add before someone else does.) ¾ is a
    borderline case because it is a distinct letter in some alphabets, but
    saying that you *must* draw <f ZWJ i> as ̃ is bad because the
    existence of an ̃ ligature simply doesn't make sense in some type

    In Latin typography, ligature formation is largely a matter of
    stylistic preference. Stylistic preferences do not belong in plain

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 25 2007 - 18:20:14 CST