RE: Zero-width ligator
Roozbeh Pournader wrote: That seems problematic to me, when used for Arabic. How should one use ZWNJ between two Arabic letters to stop the ligature? The'll get disconnected! Good point. ZWJ+ZWNJ+ZWJ comes to mind, but it is really not the maximum of elegance... _ Marco
Re: (PRIV) RE: Zero-width ligator
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZWJ+ZWNJ+ZWJ comes to mind, but it is really not the maximum of elegance... No! Please! I have a lot of difficulties forcing old staff to use Unicode, add this and they will escape. ;) This surely creates many many problems. --roozbeh
Re: Zero-width ligator
At 09:36 AM 8/10/00 -0800, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: That seems problematic to me, when used for Arabic. How should one use ZWNJ between two Arabic letters to stop the ligature? The'll get disconnected! (in those rare cases...) Use ZWJ ZWNJ ZWJ and you will get the intended effect. A./ Technical Vice President The Unicode Consortium
Re: Zero-width ligator
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Asmus Freytag wrote: Use ZWJ ZWNJ ZWJ and you will get the intended effect. Technical Vice President The Unicode Consortium Official answer?! too bad for us...
Re: Zero-width ligator
Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I inquired about that recently on the unicoRe list, and was told that the semantics of ZWJ/ZWNJ will be extended in 3.0.1 (or maybe it was 3.1). Well, that's a good thing. It sounds like the benefits described by Everson will be made available in Unicode after all. You mentioned that this decision was made at the meeting in February. Interestingly, I was at that meeting, and my recollection was that extending the semantics of ZWJ/ZWNJ was going to be given further consideration, after some people investigated the implications of extending the semantics of ZWJ, particularly for Indic scripts. But I left before the meeting was over, and the minutes reflect that a decision was in fact made (although the weasle word "provisionally" is used). Thanks for the insight on this process. Somehow I needed more information than the word "rejected" in the Pipeline table could offer. \u263a -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Zero-width ligator
I've been reading Michael Everson's documents for WG2 (N2141 and N2147) making the case for a zero-width ligator character. From the Pipeline table, I see that the proposal was rejected by the UTC in February. Now that I have at least one persuasive side of the story (Everson's), I'd like to know what the UTC's reasoning was for rejecting the ZWL proposal. What alternatives are envisioned for indicating ligatures? Will U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER be used to indicate optional ligation, will it be handled through external markup, or do we need to rely on precomposed ligature "characters" such as those in the U+FBxx block? I'm sure this was discussed at great length on the unicore list, but it would be nice to hear "in public" how this was resolved. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
