After more tests, it seems that Word effectively changes a SOFT HYPHEN
(U+00AD) on input into control US (U+001F), which it uses not as a
regular soft hyphen but as an optional hyphen.
This is then changed back to a regular soft hyphen in the clipboard
when copying it there in a rich text format
2011/7/6 Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com:
On 7/3/2011 6:31 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Regarfing the previous comment about the Danish aa,
Sorry, most of that discussion missed the mark.
Modern Danish can have AA for two reasons. Accidental occurrence, as in
dataanalyse which is composed
On 7/3/2011 6:31 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Regarfing the previous comment about the Danish aa,
Sorry, most of that discussion missed the mark.
Modern Danish can have AA for two reasons. Accidental occurrence, as
in dataanalyse which is composed of two words which just happens to
put two A
2011-07-06 9:25, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Because accidental digraphs (in Danish) happen at word boundaries in a
compound, the SHY is an elegant way to mark them.
It may often be a practical trick, given the current repertoire of
characters in Unicode and the way they are handled in different
On 7/6/2011 12:16 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Allowing word division just to say that some characters do not
constitute a digraph (or trigraph…) is not practical e.g. when the
text has otherwise no word divisions, for one reason or another, or
when the particular word division point is
On 7/6/2011 11:18 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
The Danes, over a decade ago, when they made the official
recommendation to use SHY appear to have come to the conclusion that
AA can never occur accidentally, except at word division in compounds.
Not really a safe conclusion. :)
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
You're wrong, it DOES. I just tested it (in Microsoft Word 2010 for
Windows 7) within a random long word (aa) and the SHY
is recognized to generate the intended hyphenation break.
That’s good news, if your analysis is correct, but the
2011/7/4 Andreas Prilop prilop4...@trashmail.net:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
You're wrong, it DOES. I just tested it (in Microsoft Word 2010 for
Windows 7) within a random long word (aa) and the SHY
is recognized to generate the intended hyphenation break.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 20:56, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
I may have missed some parts of the discussion, but I don’t see why you
couldn’t just use the zero-width non-joiner. Using it may cause risks of its
own, but at least you would be dealing with risks related to the
2011/7/3 André Szabolcs Szelp a.sz.sz...@gmail.com:
I would also think that ZWNJ is more safe and appropriate than CGJ.
Szabolcs
How would it help? If I don't like typographic ligatures in principle,
I would be within my right to put ZWNJs between every pair of letters
and it must have
2011/7/2 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi:
And there is really no guarantee that programs support the soft hyphen. For
one, Microsoft Word doesn’t—it treats it as just another printable
character.
You're wrong, it DOES. I just tested it (in Microsoft Word 2010 for
Windows 7) within a random
Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/7/2 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi:
And there is really no guarantee that programs support the soft
hyphen. For one, Microsoft Word doesn’t—it treats it as just another
printable character.
You're wrong, it DOES. I just tested it (in Microsoft Word 2010 for
Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/7/2 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi:
And there is really no guarantee that programs support the soft
hyphen. For one, Microsoft Word doesn’t—it treats it as just another
printable character.
You're wrong, it DOES. I just tested it (in Microsoft Word 2010 for
Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/7/2 Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi:
And there is really no guarantee that programs support the soft
hyphen. For one, Microsoft Word doesn’t—it treats it as just another
printable character.
You're wrong, it DOES. I just tested it (in Microsoft Word 2010 for
From: Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:59:18 +0200
Subject: Re: ch ligature in a monospace font
2011/7/1 Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com:
I wonder if anyone has some statistics on the use of CGJ. Its revised
intended use was to disrupt
2011/7/2 Andrew Miller a.j.mil...@bcs.org.uk:
The ng in Llangollen is not the digram ng but two separate letters
(unlike the ll in the name which is the digram).
Why not simply using a soft hyphen between n and g in this case ?
Soft hyphens are normally recognized as such by smart correctors
On 7/2/2011 8:59 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/7/2 Andrew Millera.j.mil...@bcs.org.uk:
The ng in Llangollen is not the digram ng but two separate letters
(unlike the ll in the name which is the digram).
Why not simply using a soft hyphen between n and g in this case ?
Soft hyphens are
Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/2/2011 8:59 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
[...]
Why not simply using a soft hyphen between n and g in this case ?
Soft hyphens are normally recognized as such by smart correctors and
as well by search engines or collators. It seems enough for me to
indicate that this is
...@bcs.org.uk; unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: unicode Digest V12 #108
On 7/2/2011 8:59 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/7/2 Andrew Millera.j.mil...@bcs.org.uk:
The ng in Llangollen is not the digram ng but two separate letters
(unlike the ll in the name which is the digram).
Why not simply using
19 matches
Mail list logo
