From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In the case of INVISIBLE LETTER, it seems likely -- based on the
comments of experts -- that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
But new control characters (and quasi-controls like IL) have tended to
cause more problems and confusion for Unicode in the pa
Peter Kirk wrote:
>> That is to say, the benefits of creating a separate character to
>> disunify the diacritic-carrying function from SPACE are certainly
>> real, but so is the likelihood that people will confuse its
>> functionality with that of ZWSP and ZWJ and ZWNJ and ZWNBSP, and
>> invent b
On 15/09/2004 05:48, Doug Ewell wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
I hope that anyone who is reviewing the INVISIBLE LETTER proposal is
aware that this kind of usage with ZWNJ (in fact I think you probably
mean ZWJ) is not at all part of the proposal, but is nothing more than
a speculative extenstion of
On 15/09/2004 04:02, Peter Constable wrote:
...
IIRC, the scenario of IL *not* followed by a combining mark was not one
explicitly discussed by the proposers before preparing their proposal. I
would consider it a possibility that the advance width could be in
proportion to the width of the combinin
At 05:21 PM 9/14/2004, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
On 2004.09.14, 17:06, Jörg Knappen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My classic for this situation is the german -burg abbreviature often
> seen in cartography: It is -bg. with breve between b and g.
Why not U+0062 U+035D U+0067 ? I guess that the
Peter Kirk wrote:
> I hope that anyone who is reviewing the INVISIBLE LETTER proposal is
> aware that this kind of usage with ZWNJ (in fact I think you probably
> mean ZWJ) is not at all part of the proposal, but is nothing more than
> a speculative extenstion of it dreamed up by Philippe. And it
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> > Since INVISIBLE LETTER is spacing, wouldn't it make more sense to
define
>
> Isn't rather INVISIBLE LETTER *non-spacing* (zero-width minimum), even
> though it is *not combining* ?
The intent in the proposal i
On 14/09/2004 18:28, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
So I do think that the LateX2e "compound word mark" should map to
rather than just ZWNJ...
The "(-)burg" abbreviation as "(-)bËg" (with a non-spacing but
non-combining breve) should then be encoded with the invisible letter,
in combination with ZWN
On 2004.09.14, 17:06, Jörg Knappen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My classic for this situation is the german -burg abbreviature often
> seen in cartography: It is -bg. with breve between b and g.
Why not U+0062 U+035D U+0067 ? I guess that the typical presentation
of this convention uses a regula
Since INVISIBLE LETTER is spacing, wouldn't it make more sense to define
Isn't rather INVISIBLE LETTER *non-spacing* (zero-width minimum), even
though it is *not combining* ?
I mean here that its width would be zero unless a visible diacritic expands
it. It is then distinct from other whitespaces
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Good point, but is the ZWNJ control supposed to be used as a base
character with a defined height? I thought it was just a control for
indicating where ligatures are preferably to avoid when rendering,
leaving it fully ignorable if the renderer has no other option than
ren
Ârg Knappen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Questions about diacritics
In LaTeX2e with the Cork coding (for TeXni
In LaTeX2e with the Cork coding (for TeXnicians: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc})
there is a so-called >>compound word mark<<. It has the functions of
teh ZERO WIDTH NON JOINER in the UCS: It breaks ligatures, it can be used
to produce a final s in the middle of a word.
By design, it has zero width but
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both
letters (au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible
base character (in the Public Review section of the Unicode website)
On 13/09/2004 15:45, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Gerd Schumacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Another invisible diacritics carrier
I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both
letters
(au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Surely the intention is for to be
equivalent (although it cannot be canonically equivalent) to spacing
acute, U+00B4? But then would this kind of ligature mechanism with ZWNJ
and U+00B4 be appropriate? I would think not.
will not be canonically equivalent
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both
>> letters (au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
>
> Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible
> base character (in the Public Review section of the Unicode website),
> by encoding for exampl
From: "Gerd Schumacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Another invisible diacritics carrier
I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both letters
(au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible base
character (in the Public Review section
Gerd:
Could you provide some images of the things you're wanting to support,
along with further clarification regarding which are in existing usage
versus which are hypothetical?
Peter Constable
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Ge
19 matches
Mail list logo
