I once wrote: > > My thoughts were to put a ZWNJ after the Ra to indicate that is not > > to form a Reph e.g. Ra+ZWNJ+Virama+Ya = Ra+Jophola > > Then I remembered that in some font designs, secondary forms such > > as jophola can form a conjunct ligature with the preceding > consonant. > > I think that a ZWNJ would imply that Ra and Ya should not ligate.
James Kass said: > Exactly. This would seem to work without breaking anything > existing and would not mean extending the semantics of ZWNJ. > > Have you since changed your mind about this? No! This is an example of stating something that can be read in two ways - unfortunatly you took an unintended meaning :-( Re-iterating in reverse should get the point across, I hope: I think that a ZWNJ would imply that Ra and Ya should not join together. (ZWNonJoiner) But I remembered that in some font designs Ra and Ya *do* join together (they make a ligature.) Therefore Ra+ZWNJ+Virama+Ya cannot represent Ra+Yaphalaa when they form a ligature. Andy
