John H. Jenkins wrote,
> I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages), the use
> of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ technique for
> requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to cases where the word is
> spelled incorrectly if *not* ligated (and similarly ZWNJ is intended to
> prevent ligature formation where that would make the word spelled
> incorrectly). The kind and degree of ligation in English is generally
> considered a sylistic issue and is best left to higher-level protocols.
> Thus saith Unicode 3.2.
>
Sounds like a giant step backwards from Unicode 3.0.1 (March 2002)
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/Unicode3.0.1.html
(see section "Controlling Ligatures")
This page clearly states that ZWJ is proper for controlling the
formation of Latin ligatures and even uses f+ZWJ+i as an example.
Unicode 3.1 (May 2002) uses the same examples:
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr27/index.html
Can you please point me to a URL for Unicode 3.2 ligature control?
This link (March 2002):
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr28/
...glosses over Latin ligatures suggesting that mark-up should be
used in some cases and ZWJ in others.
Becuase of the reasons cited in that last link, IMHO ligature control
is best performed by the author of a document and ZWJ still seems
to be the most straightforward method.
Best regards,
James Kass.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Jun 30 2002 - 05:30:41 EDT