John H. Jenkins wrote,
> I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages), the use > of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ technique for > requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to cases where the word is > spelled incorrectly if *not* ligated (and similarly ZWNJ is intended to > prevent ligature formation where that would make the word spelled > incorrectly). The kind and degree of ligation in English is generally > considered a sylistic issue and is best left to higher-level protocols. > Thus saith Unicode 3.2. > Sounds like a giant step backwards from Unicode 3.0.1 (March 2002) http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/Unicode3.0.1.html (see section "Controlling Ligatures") This page clearly states that ZWJ is proper for controlling the formation of Latin ligatures and even uses f+ZWJ+i as an example. Unicode 3.1 (May 2002) uses the same examples: http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr27/index.html Can you please point me to a URL for Unicode 3.2 ligature control? This link (March 2002): http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr28/ ...glosses over Latin ligatures suggesting that mark-up should be used in some cases and ZWJ in others. Becuase of the reasons cited in that last link, IMHO ligature control is best performed by the author of a document and ZWJ still seems to be the most straightforward method. Best regards, James Kass.
