---------------------- Forwarded by Peter
Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT on 12/30/99 09:40 AM
---------------------------
From: <unicore@unicode.org> AT Internet on 12/30/99 07:26 AM
Received on: 12/30/99
To: Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT, <unicore@unicode.org> AT
Internet@Ccmail
cc:
Subject: Re: Latin Ligatures and Unicode
I agree; we should join these two threads back on the public
list. Your posting would be a good addition to that, so you
might repeat it.
Mark
peter_constable@sil.org wrote:
> ME>> In the paper I am preparing right now I have two
identical
> > texts printed 20 years apart, in the same font, but
with
> different uses of > different ligatures, both within
the same
> text and between the two texts. > These aren't
semantic
> ligatures, but they are certainly unpredictable and >
we really
> need a solid mechanism to handle them.
>
> KW>It seems to me that this is the kind of example
that
> *undermines* the case for a ZWL, and strengthens the
case for
> using markup for this kind of thing.
>
> I'd agree with Ken here. I've suggested three
minimally
> necessary conditions for characters that control
ligation in
> plain text:
>
> 1) that there are cases where ligation determines a
(lexical)
> semantic distinction
>
> 2) that these cases involve ligatures that are not
predictable
> by context
>
> 3) that these cases involve ligatures that are not
optional
> within the given writing system
>
> It sounds like the example Michael mentions meets only
the
> second of these conditions.
>
> (By the way, is there a reason why there is a
sub-thread on
> this topic that's happening on the unicore list rather
than on
> the unicode list, where most of the discussion on this
topic is
> taking place?)
>
> Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT