>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".