On 5 Apr 2017, at 17:28, William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Well, whether there is a need to use a ZWJ or no need to use a ZWJ is not > here the issue. There isn’t. We should use VS just as we do with maths and Myanmar characters. > I then asked, the question worded differently from how it is worded here, > about whether UTC needs to be involved where a character sequence that > contains one or more ZWJ characters generates a glyph with a meaning > different from the meaning of the original sequence that did not have the one > or more ZWJ characters included. The proposal has been made for Standardized Variation Sequences. > For example, p ZWJ p produces a pp ligature with no change of meaning. A ZWJ is not necessary to produce a pp ligature. > For example, where WOMAN ZWJ ROCKET produces a glyph for a LADY ASTRONAUT, > thus a change of meaning and I think that it went to UTC as there was a > change of meaning but I am not congruently sure of that.. That is a matter of emoji which is not “normal” symbol usage and is not really analogous to what we are discussing here. > SQUARE ZWJ CHESSPIECE or CHESSPIECE ZWJ SQUARE produces a CHESSPIECE ON A > SQUARE, thus a change of meaning. No, it’s not. CHESSPIECE is still CHESSPIECE. The glyph for CHESSPIECE needs to be altered in order to make it suitable to use the characters in a way which will permit the presentation and interchange of chessboard matrices. Michael Everson
