James Kass said: > One problem with TR28 is that it is worded so that it appears to > be "in addition" to earlier guidelines.
It is. The way this works is as follows: The original decision about the ZWJ as request for ligation was documented in the Unicode 3.0.1 update notice. That documentation was rolled forward into UAX #27 (Unicode 3.1), where it was explicitly cast as text to replace the Unicode 3.0 text on p. 318 re Controlling Ligatures, including an update of the example table. The additional text in UAX #28 is just that -- an *addition* to the Unicode 3.1 text, not a replacement for it. This will all become more apparent when we can finally publish Unicode 4.0, which will roll all of the textual additions, once again, into a single published document. > This implies that the examples > used in TR27, for one, are still valid. They are. > In TR27, font developers are > urged to add things like "f+ZWJ+i" to existing tables where "f+i" > is already present. That recommendation still stands -- and, as John pointed out, is being implemented by vendors. > Another problem with TR28 is that its date is earlier than the date > on TR27. This suggests that TR27 is more current. I don't understand this claim. The date on UAX #27 is: 2001-05-16 The date on UAX #28 is: 2002-03-07 Please check that you are referring to the most recent (and only valid) versions of each. Otherwise, regarding the substance of this thread, I find myself in violent agreement with John, who it seems to me is quite ably stating the case for the current treatment as decided by the UTC. --Ken
