At 08:58 AM 15-07-02, Doug Ewell wrote: >No, what bothers me is that the ZWJ/ZWNJ ligation scheme is starting to >look just like the DOA (deprecated on arrival) Plane 14 language tags. >In each case, Unicode has created a mechanism to solve a genuine (if >limited) need, but then told us -- officially or unofficially -- that we >should not use it, or that it is "reserved for use with special >protocols" which are never defined or mentioned again. ...
>ZWJ/ZWNJ for ligation control is part of Unicode. It is not always the >best solution, but it is *a* solution, and should be available to the >user without restriction or discouragement. I don't think I am trying to discourage people from using ZWJ/ZWNJ for ligation control, or to impose restrictions upon it, but I do have concerns about the practicalities of implementing such control in a way that provides users of ZWJ with the results they desire while not breaking existing ligature implementations. I really am trying to figure out a clear and consistent way to make ZWJ work. Of course, I can only try to propose part of the solution, because ZWJ has an impact not only on how fonts are made but on how layout engines handle the relationship of control characters and glyphs. The implementation note in TR27 stating that font developers should add glyph substitution lookups for ZWJ sequences to their fonts seems to me to display an incomplete understanding of the technology involved. The comments on 'Ligatures and Latin Typography -- naive comments, I think: the layout issues involved are in no way limited to Latin typography -- in TR28, instead of clarifying the situation retreat to a vaguer position. Perhaps the idea is that, by keeping things vague, the UTC permits freedom of implementation, but so far all I am seeing in response is confusion: confusion about what ZWJ signifies in text, and how it should be implemented in line layout. If Doug is worried that ZWJ will be 'deprecated on arrival', he might also worry that ZWJ will be so variously interpreted as to become useless as a reliable means of achieving any consistent result. I have other, more general concerns, about the poor communication between the UTC and the people who make fonts. This is not the UTC's fault. Unlike other technologies that are related to and influenced by Unicode, e.g. web standards and technology, there is no parallel organisation governing the development of font software, no 'Font Technology Consortium'. This means that communication between UTC and font developers has been, at best, ad hoc. I am trying to do something to rectify this situation, since I believe it will benefit everyone if UTC can rely on more regular, consistent and informed involvement from the type industry, and font developers can receive and digest information from the UTC that has an impact on font technology in a timely fashion. John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Language must belong to the Other -- to my linguistic community as a whole -- before it can belong to me, so that the self comes to its unique articulation in a medium which is always at some level indifferent to it. - Terry Eagleton
