Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 19:04:45 EST
Andy White wrote,
> > RA + ZWNJ + VIRAMA + YA might be the way to go in order to
> > disambiguate REPH + YA from RA + YA-PHALAA.
> I had thought that once. You can see my original thoughts on the subject
Quoting from the linked page:
> My thoughts were to put a ZWNJ after the Ra to indicate that is not
> to form a Reph e.g. Ra+ZWNJ+Virama+Ya = Ra+Jophola
> Then I remembered that in some font designs, secondary forms such
> as jophola can form a conjunct ligature with the preceding consonant.
> I think that a ZWNJ would imply that Ra and Ya should not ligate.
Exactly. This would seem to work without breaking anything existing
and would not mean extending the semantics of ZWNJ.
Have you since changed your mind about this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 05 2003 - 19:38:48 EST