From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 12:19:39 EST
On 08/11/2003 17:09, Mark Davis wrote:
>I agree with the first part of your analysis. By the phrase "requesting ligation
>of combining characters" it is unclear to me what you mean, and whether that is
>the right solution to whatever problem you are referring to.
>
>Mark
>__________________________________
>http://www.macchiato.com
>► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
>
>
>
A further reply to this one:
On the bidi list Paul Nelson pointed out that in Khmer ZWJ and ZWNJ do
not break combining sequences; or at least they do not break grapheme
clusters, which is not quite the same thing. And the same may be true of
Indic scripts, although in the examples I found ZWJ/ZWNJ is always at
the end of a combining sequence. Are ZWJ and ZWNJ actually used within
combining character sequences (or what would be such sequences if not
technically broken)? Is there some tension here with the general
definition of combining character sequences?
If Khmer really does do this, and unless there are any real objections
to this practice, perhaps the best way ahead, rather than defining a new
COMBINING CHARACTER JOINER and changing the Khmer encoding, is to adjust
the definition of combining character sequences to allow ZWJ, ZWNJ and
perhaps some other suitable layout control characters to be included
within such sequences. This would allow the Hebrew issue to be solved in
a way analogous to the Khmer issue.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 13:01:03 EST