And if the implementers of rendering engines will simply "paint" instances of U+034F so that they become available to the font side of the rendering equation, then it should be relatively simple, as for the Biblical Hebrew point sequence cases, to get the <lamed, patah, CGJ, hiriq> sequences to display properly.
Yes, if the CGJ is painted, I'm home free :)
Unicode may treat CGJ as a 'mark', but if we don't treat it as a mark in the font GDEF table we can ligate it away during glyph composition, e.g.:
lamed CGJ -> lamed [ignore marks]
and then never have to worry about it again during mark positioning. I would have to add it to my font, but apart from that I don't see any problems from the font side. Paul may have concerns from the script engine side: I'm not sure how a 'mark' that is ignored in search operations etc. fits with the general understanding of mark behaviour.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
media cannibalism.
- Emma Brockes, at the EU summit
