From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 22:02:02 CDT
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On
> Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> > Since INVISIBLE LETTER is spacing, wouldn't it make more sense to
define
>
> Isn't rather INVISIBLE LETTER *non-spacing* (zero-width minimum), even
> though it is *not combining* ?
The intent in the proposal is to have a character that
- has text-processing properties like a letter
- has no glyph outline but has some amount of positive advance width
IIRC, the scenario of IL *not* followed by a combining mark was not one
explicitly discussed by the proposers before preparing their proposal. I
would consider it a possibility that the advance width could be in
proportion to the width of the combining mark; it might be considered a
logical extension of that idea to say that the advance width could
reduce to 0 in the event the maximum width of marks combining with the
IL were 0 (i.e. there are no visible combining marks), but that was not
a specific intent of the proposal.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 14 2004 - 22:05:22 CDT