From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Tue Sep 21 2004 - 13:50:12 CDT
Kent wrote:
> Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> > Second, there is the question of cursive joining for Arabic.
> > I don't know anything in the Unicode Standard that states that
> > a combining enclosing mark breaks cursive ligation. It stands
> > to reason that it *should*, but I don't know anything that
> > requires it.
>
> Well, according to the Unicode standard, it used to be break
> the joining on one side (the right side, unless one follows the
> bidi algorithm literally, and do the join analysis after bidi,
> in which case it would be the left side). I complained about
> this (and other things about joining properties), suggesting
> that "Me" characters (like an enclosing circle) should break
> the joining on both sides. But the UTC decision was the opposite,
> but equally good; Me characters should (shall?) not break the
> joining on any side. This decision was communicated to the
> bidi list recently:
Ah yes, I had forgotten about that decision, which has not
yet been rolled out into data files. (As of now, in Unicode
4.0.1, gc=Me are not Transparent.
With this change in place, it seems to me that the case is
quite clear *for* separate encoding of any circled Arabic
letter used as a symbol. If the sequence <062D, 20DD> were
used, instead, it would cursively join inappropriately with
neighboring Arabic characters, unless surrounded by ZWNJ as
well.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 21 2004 - 13:51:56 CDT