Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
That seems problematic to me, when used for Arabic. How should one use
ZWNJ between two Arabic letters to stop the ligature? The'll get
disconnected!
Good point.
ZWJ+ZWNJ+ZWJ comes to mind, but it is really not the maximum of elegance...
_ Marco
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZWJ+ZWNJ+ZWJ comes to mind, but it is really not the maximum of elegance...
No! Please! I have a lot of difficulties forcing old staff to use Unicode,
add this and they will escape. ;)
This surely creates many many problems.
--roozbeh
At 09:36 AM 8/10/00 -0800, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
That seems problematic to me, when used for Arabic. How should one use
ZWNJ between two Arabic letters to stop the ligature? The'll get
disconnected!
(in those rare cases...)
Use ZWJ ZWNJ ZWJ and you will get the intended effect.
A./
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Use ZWJ ZWNJ ZWJ and you will get the intended effect.
Technical Vice President
The Unicode Consortium
Official answer?! too bad for us...
Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I inquired about that recently on the unicoRe list, and was told that
the semantics of ZWJ/ZWNJ will be extended in 3.0.1 (or maybe it was
3.1).
Well, that's a good thing. It sounds like the benefits described by
Everson will be made available in
I've been reading Michael Everson's documents for WG2 (N2141 and N2147)
making the case for a zero-width ligator character. From the Pipeline
table, I see that the proposal was rejected by the UTC in February.
Now that I have at least one persuasive side of the story (Everson's),
I'd like
6 matches
Mail list logo
