From: "John H. Jenkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:54 PM
> On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 08:06 AM, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> > WO> U+F3A2 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT TWO CHARACTERS
> > WO> U+F3A3 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT THREE CHARACTERS
> > WO> U+F3A4 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT FOUR CHARACTERS
> > While I don't think this discussion of various PUA allocations should
> > continue very further, it's probably a lot better to introduce the
> > already-discussed ZERO WIDTH LIGATOR in such a form that X ZWL Y
> > produces the XY ligature, X ZWL Y ZWL Z the XYZ ligature and so on. It
> > saves you a lot of hassle with longer ligatures.
> Zero width ligator was rejected. Zero-width joiner can be used to mark
> ligation points where they are absolutely necessary; where they are merely
> stylistic preferences, they belong in markup.
But with that said, I have to agree with Philipp -- the PUA discussion
really needs to end.
William, please start thinking of the PUA as the city dump. Everyone is glad
it is there when you have to stick something somewhere, but no one really
talks about it much and no one *ever* wants to take things out of it and
strew it on their nice, clean characters.
Trigeminal Software, Inc. -- http://www.trigeminal.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 24 2002 - 15:54:24 EDT