. Andy White wrote, > No! > This is an example of stating something that can be read in two ways -
Hmmm, kind of like RA+VIRAMA+YA in current implementations? > unfortunatly you took an unintended meaning :-( Actually, I did get the intended meaning. Unfortunately, though, I didn't get it until after my reply was sent. <smile> > 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. > So, I've had a half hour to consider how to respond to your anticipated response. <smile> If a font designer makes a special ligature form of RA+JOPHOLA, then the easy solution would be to put a look-up in the font's GSUB table: RA + ZWNJ + VIRAMA + YA ---> <my special ligature form> The hard part of this, as you know, is getting something like this to actually work. But, as you also know, the people who are working on Unicode font engines, like Paul Nelson of Microsoft, are very diligent in following up on these special cases. Remember all of our talk about the KHANDA TA and note that the current experimental version of Uniscribe now seems to be properly substituting that form. Best regards, James Kass .
