Re: ch ligature in a monospace font
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 04:22:59 +0200 Philippe Verdy wrote: > 2011/7/1 Richard Wordingham : > > Its main purpose is to indicate that a sequence of characters do > > not form a collating unit. However, if one is using a 'monospace' > > font to space 'letters' uniformly, i.e. to space collating > > sequences evenly, then I suggest it is the appropriate character. > Its main use is in fact to prevent reordering of otherwise canonically > equivalent sequences involving combining characters. I wonder if anyone has some statistics on the use of CGJ. Its revised intended use was to disrupt collating sequences, but you may be right about its most frequent use being to disrupt canonical reordering. A few years ago I concluded it wasn't yet safe to type the Welsh place name Llan͏gollen with CGJ. > As grapheme clusters should not be broken in the middle by collating > elements, A very Eurocentric view! You're misunderstanding me. The digraph should be encoded , and accidental combinations . Therefore a 'monospace' font behaving as JFC wants should bunch (a 'ligature') into one cell and display using two character cells. I am presuming that JFC would want ligatures and accidental combinations in normal proportional fonts to display the same. > > CGJ however MAY have a visual impact on the rendering (notably because > it helps fixing the relative order of sequences combining characters > with non-zero combining classes, exactly because these combining > characters may be positioned relatively to each other). But here I > don't see any problem od relative ordering. > In other words, or > would not form the single collating elements really > needed for Breton. And I have never intentionally argued otherwise. Richard.
Re: Typo in bidi reference implementation
On 7/1/2011 12:06 AM, Peter Krefting wrote: Hi! On line 65 of http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/BidiReferenceCpp/bidi.cpp (version 26) the word "utility" is spelled as "uitlity" (line 80 has the correct spelling). Not that it matters much, just something we noticed. If it's in a comment, and easily "corrected" by the reader, I'd lean towards not touching the file. Definitely not something for which one would want to release (and test) a new version. But we could fix the sources so that *if* there's ever a new version, it won't repeat the same issue. A./
Auto Reply: Re: Typo in bidi reference implementation
I am out of the office with limited access to inbox. I'll return to the office on Tuesday, July 11th. For an urgent issue in SOA or ECM, please contact Yushui Du or Huifeng Fan, respectively. For other areas please contact Scott Ng. Regards, -Dan
Re: Typo in bidi reference implementation
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Peter Krefting wrote: > Not that it matters much, just something we noticed. > Peter Krefting - Core Technology Developer, Opera Software ASA I noticed something that matters -- namely that Opera isn't really fit to display bidirectional text and documents. For example: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/browse_thread/thread/ecdb47aff4dd0aeb
Typo in bidi reference implementation
Hi! On line 65 of http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/BidiReferenceCpp/bidi.cpp (version 26) the word "utility" is spelled as "uitlity" (line 80 has the correct spelling). Not that it matters much, just something we noticed. -- \\// Peter Krefting - Core Technology Developer, Opera Software ASA