From: John H. Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 11:47:31 EST
On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 02:59 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Using ZWJ to control ligation is admittedly a new concept, and it may
> not have been taken up yet by many vendors, but that seems like a
> poor reason to discourage the Unicode approach.
> Proprietary layout features in OT-savvy apps like InDesign might get
> job done, but wouldn't it be better if app vendors and font vendors
> would follow the Unicode Standard recommendation? You never know, it
> might even reduce the number of requests to encode ligatures.
Remember, though that the Unicode approach is that ZWJ is *not* the
preferred Unicode way to support things like a discretionary ct
ligature in Latin text. The standard says that the preferred way to
handle this is through higher-level protocols.
I know that you and I disagree with to what extent ligation control
belongs in plain text, but the standard clearly allows both approaches.
The ZWJ mechanism is not *the* Unicode approach.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 12:26:47 EST