Some nice person just said to me privately: >Michael Everson wrote: > >> In my paper http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2317.pdf I raised >> a lot of questions about exceptions and the use of these. I don't >> think they were ever all answered.My other papers, N2141 and N2147, >> show a number of examples of ligation which is not particularly >> predictable. That's what ZWJ us supposed to be for. > >That's because some people (not to mention any ad-hominem names; there >is more than one) are more interested in saying "This is a simple >problem, and the rendering systems of the future (or my Mac today) will >handle it automatically" than in answering the complex linguistic and >orthographic questions you raised. > >Personally I think your ZERO-WIDTH LIGATOR papers are among the best of >all your Unicode-related papers. I agreed with the decision to unify >the ligation function with ZWJ rather than creating a new character, but >your arguments about Latin, Greek, Runic, Old Hungarian, etc. ligation >were thorough and unassailable.
Thank you, nice person. It's nice to know that someone else looked at the argument and came up with the same conclusion that I did. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
