>I assume this means that neither will ever occupy any rendering space.

It will likely depend on the font. If the font maps it to a zero width
glyph then yes
But if the font doesn't map it, and since JDK doesn't treat it
specially, then it'll end up mapped to the missing glyph
just like *any* character you try to display that's not present in the font.
and the mssing glyph usually does occupy space.

but hopefully you will only be using fonts that map these ..

>What's the effect of ZWNJ and ZWJ on ligatures?

http://www.unicode.org/standard/versions/Unicode3.0.1.html#Ligatures

states :
 ZERO WIDTH  NON-JOINER

The intended semantic is to break both cursive connections and ligatures
in rendering.

ZERO WIDTH JOINER

is more complex .. but it encourages ligatures that would not otehrwise
be formed
please check out URL above


-phil.

Peter B. West wrote:
Doug noted earlier that the implementation supports 0x200C (ZERO WIDTH
NON-JOINER) and 0x200D (ZERO WIDTH JOINER). Not supported (along with
ZWSP) is WORD JOINER 0x2060. I assume this means that neither will ever
occupy any rendering space.

What's the effect of ZWNJ and ZWJ on ligatures? Will either or both
prevent the formation of ligatures?

Thanks
Peter

===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA2D-INTEREST".  For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".


===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA2D-INTEREST".  For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".

Reply via email to