Am 2000-09-14 um 15:35 h UCT hat John Cowan geschrieben:
> By the new rules, ZWNJ [...] blocks ligation.
> ZWJ (which is now the ligator) is not required for every instance of
ligation,
Should this go into
<http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/ligature_digraph.html>?
I have re-read section "Controlling Ligatures", in TUC 3.0, p. 318.
Now, I interpret the wording, and fig. 13-2, so that I would have to
code, e. g., German "Auflage"
as "A" "u" "f" ZWJ ZWNJ ZWJ "l" "a" "g" "e":
the ZWNJ to forbid the incorrect f-l ligature, and the two ZWJs
to provide the correct cursive connectivity, just in case my text
would be rendered with a cursive font. Is this correct?
Note that this example is just one instance of a very common pattern
in German: my Cassel's lists 48 words starting with "auf�l", and as
I have already said, you can form arbitrary compounds without any limit.
Am 2000-09-14 um 18:55 h UCT hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> I was giving a general explanation of ligatures in the context of the
> character/glyph model assumed by Unicode [...] The
> points you make here are consistent with what I was trying to communicate.
Thanks to both of you for the clarification.
Best wishes,
Otto Stolz
