No, I think ZWJ may be exactly the way to go here.This is an interesting idea, but I don't think it quite works. The decision whether to shift holams on to a following alef or vav is not something to be decided on a per occurrence basis but enforced on all renderers. Rather, it is a rendering decision which should be applied consistently, depending on context, through a whole document or style. So it is not something to be encoded, but something which should depend on the font etc.
<consonant, holam, (accent), ZWJ, alef/vav> for making a 'ligature' (of sorts, in a technical sence) where the holam is displayed on the alef or vav. Without the ZWJ, the holam would be displayed on the <consonant> to which it logically belongs. (alef and vav are base characters, so the ZWJ is not breaking any combining sequence here.)
/kent k
The distinction which does need to be encoded is between holam male and vav followed by holam, as many (though not all) renderers want to make this distinction but they can only do so if there is an encoding difference. It would certainly be an option to encode holam male as vav - ZWJ - holam or vav - CGJ - holam. But if this holam is to be encoded before the vav, the ZWJ is redundant.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
