A further reply to this one:I agree with the first part of your analysis. By the phrase "requesting ligation of combining characters" it is unclear to me what you mean, and whether that is the right solution to whatever problem you are referring to.
Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com â ààààààààààààààààààààà â
On the bidi list Paul Nelson pointed out that in Khmer ZWJ and ZWNJ do not break combining sequences; or at least they do not break grapheme clusters, which is not quite the same thing. And the same may be true of Indic scripts, although in the examples I found ZWJ/ZWNJ is always at the end of a combining sequence. Are ZWJ and ZWNJ actually used within combining character sequences (or what would be such sequences if not technically broken)? Is there some tension here with the general definition of combining character sequences?
If Khmer really does do this, and unless there are any real objections to this practice, perhaps the best way ahead, rather than defining a new COMBINING CHARACTER JOINER and changing the Khmer encoding, is to adjust the definition of combining character sequences to allow ZWJ, ZWNJ and perhaps some other suitable layout control characters to be included within such sequences. This would allow the Hebrew issue to be solved in a way analogous to the Khmer issue.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
