RE: Arabic letters separated by markup

From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Sat Jun 11 2005 - 01:49:04 CDT

  • Next message: Chris Jacobs: "Re: Arabic letters separated by markup"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
    > [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson
    > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:18 AM
    > To: Kent Karlsson
    > Cc: unicode@unicode.org
    > Subject: Re: Arabic letters separated by markup
    >
    >
    > Kent Karlsson wrote:
    >
    > > That does not really follow. I think "inline" tags *between*
    > > Arabic/Syriac/
    > > Mongolian letters (possibly with combining marks) can be
    > seen as acting
    > > like
    > > ZERO-WIDTH JOINER for the purpose of
    > Arabic/Syriac/Mongolian shaping.
    > > Certain changes that the markup may result in, such as a
    > size change,
    > > will
    > > make the join more or less "misfit" graphically. But
    > whoever wrote the
    > > markup
    > > asked for a size change, not a joining change. Ligature
    > formation should
    > > (always) be blocked over markup tags.
    >
    > But if one letter is at 20pt and another is at 12pt, how can
    > the form a ligature? or if
    > one is bold and the other is italic? This is the sort of
    > stylistic change that might be
    > affected by inline markup. The kind of glyph processing
    > lookups that control e.g. basic
    > Arabic shaping, ligation, etc. are all font-specific. As soon
    > as you change the font, you
    > are dealing with completely separate runs of glyphs that will
    > be independently shaped.
    >
    > It is just about possible to imagine that something like
    > basic Arabic shaping *could* be
    > maintained, in that the character level analysis performed an
    > engine might recognise that
    > one Arabic character is being followed by another Arabic
    > character, so would not apply
    > final form shaping. But it seems much more likely that the
    > glyph run boundary will
    > interpreted as a text boundary for shaping purposes. With
    > ligatures, I don't see how it is
    > possible at all to maintain shaping across run boundaries,
    > since the ligature is a single
    > glyph in a single font.

    I think in this case either font should be used for the ligature, unless
    there was a explicit ZWNJ.

    Jony

    >
    > John Hudson
    >
    > --
    >
    > Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
    > Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
    >
    > Currently reading:
    > Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was
    > War (revised edition), by Gwynne Dyer
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 11 2005 - 00:51:18 CDT