I'd like to remind everyone to look at the latest version of the Unicode
Standard, especially when looking at fine points. To cite Unicode 3.0.1
(http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/Unicode3.0.1.html)
"Section 13.2 Controlling Ligatures, page 318: the text is superseded by the
following."
Mark
Otto Stolz wrote:
> Am 2000-09-14 um 15:35 h UCT hat John Cowan geschrieben:
> > By the new rules, ZWNJ [...] blocks ligation.
> > ZWJ (which is now the ligator) is not required for every instance of
> ligation,
>
> Should this go into
> <http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/ligature_digraph.html>?
>
> I have re-read section "Controlling Ligatures", in TUC 3.0, p. 318.
> Now, I interpret the wording, and fig. 13-2, so that I would have to
> code, e. g., German "Auflage"
> as "A" "u" "f" ZWJ ZWNJ ZWJ "l" "a" "g" "e":
> the ZWNJ to forbid the incorrect f-l ligature, and the two ZWJs
> to provide the correct cursive connectivity, just in case my text
> would be rendered with a cursive font. Is this correct?
>
> Note that this example is just one instance of a very common pattern
> in German: my Cassel's lists 48 words starting with "aufl", and as
> I have already said, you can form arbitrary compounds without any limit.
>
> Am 2000-09-14 um 18:55 h UCT hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> > I was giving a general explanation of ligatures in the context of the
> > character/glyph model assumed by Unicode [...] The
> > points you make here are consistent with what I was trying to communicate.
>
> Thanks to both of you for the clarification.
>
> Best wishes,
> Otto Stolz
