> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> > Since INVISIBLE LETTER is spacing, wouldn't it make more sense to define > > Isn't rather INVISIBLE LETTER *non-spacing* (zero-width minimum), even > though it is *not combining* ? The intent in the proposal is to have a character that - has text-processing properties like a letter - has no glyph outline but has some amount of positive advance width IIRC, the scenario of IL *not* followed by a combining mark was not one explicitly discussed by the proposers before preparing their proposal. I would consider it a possibility that the advance width could be in proportion to the width of the combining mark; it might be considered a logical extension of that idea to say that the advance width could reduce to 0 in the event the maximum width of marks combining with the IL were 0 (i.e. there are no visible combining marks), but that was not a specific intent of the proposal. Peter Constable
