Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> People will fail to use it. Software should show the
> ligature. Any way, I
> don't like using a Lam-Alef character in the text. I want to
> do sub-word
> searching and things like that, and it will ruin those.
Hmmm... I would say that my "WYSIWYG Unicode", or any other similar display
format, is not fit for doing searching, sorting, spell checking, etc.
For all these kinds of things I would convert text back to "proper Unicode"
and go with standard algorithms.
Would you imagine having to re-design the "visual" versions of things like
case folding, collation algorithm, regular expressions, loose matching!?
> If only you knew about the hard time I had [...]
I suffered for you. :-(
<SELF CRITICISM>
Especially when I consider that I was one of those who shouted that Michael
Everson's "zero width ligator" had to be unified with ZWJ.
My only excuse is that the UTC is probably not so much influenced by the
opinion of we dilettanti visiting the Unicode List, so they would have
decided that anyway.
</SELF>
> Please note that a ZWJ between two characters that join may
> have semantic
> meaning: "ligate them if you have the font". So if you have
> that between
> Lam and Hah, you should not delete that, because some fonts have the
> ligature.
Yes, I have recalled that just after sending the mail.
It is something I tend to remove, as explained above... :-)
> Ouch, something came to my mind just now: future versions of
> Unicode may consider some meaning for new things, [...]
And any visual layer like the one I was wondering about would fail to
implement them until it is updated to do so.
Generally, nobody will ever be able to come up with a piece of software that
automatically upgrades itself to new standards.
_ Marco
