On Friday, July 30th, 2004 19:47, Peter Kirk va escriure: >> >>> There appear to be two errors (not listed in the errata page >>> http://www.unicode.org/errata/) in Figure 15.2 on page 391 of The >>> Unicode Standard 4.0, the online version at >>> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf. <snip> >>> The fourth column is supposed to indicate the desired rendering of >>> <C1, ZWJ, C2>. But in the text just before, ZWJ is specified as
Otto answered: >> Read the paragraph immediately below that figure. > > > OK. I did. But I shouldn't have to do that as this figure is supposed > to be an example of what has been specified before. Then have a look at Unicode 3.0.1 <URL:http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/index.html#layout> and you will understand what did happen: there was initially the way you expected; but then (I cannot spot exactly when, but it should be possible to find this), for backward consideration, this very behaviour (requesting ligatures) was defeated for Arabic only. As a result, the table was updated, and now is about useless. We really should provide examples from others scripts (Khmer perhaps; and Sinhala, which appears to behave exactly this way according to SLS 1134, the Ceylanese standard) > And there is still a problem with the text before the figure. Which text? I was noticing a problem, but it is not what you are pointing out. Page 390 has a section which describes the behaviour of ZWJ. This text is where it is written that ZWJ would request a ligature (an useful addition here would be to signal that Arabic on one side, and scripts of India on another, are exceptional on this respect). Then, if ligature is not available ("otherwise"), it explains the function of ZWJ to request cursively connection form. . Otherwise, if either of the characters could cursively connect but do not normally, ZWJ requests that each of the characters take a cursive-connection form where possible. In a sequence like <X, ZWJ, Y>, where a cursive form exists for X but not for Y, the presence of ZWJ requests a cursive form for X. Till there, I have no problem. But then, I would have expected the obvious reversed case, where a cursive form exists for Y but not for X (and the function of ZWJ would be to request the/a cursive form for Y). However, there is no such text... what is written is: Otherwise, where neither a ligature nor a cursive connection is available, the ZWJ has no effect. I believe this is a formal defect that ought to be corrected. Particularly when Sinhala uses this feature quite a lot (for rakaransaya and yansaya), and also since it is described a few lines below, with the example from the Persian standard! Rest of the section reads: In other words, given three broad categories below, ZWJ requests that glyphs in the highest available category (for the given font) be used: 1. Unconnected 2. Cursively connected 3. Ligated Antoine
