On 15/09/2004 05:48, Doug Ewell wrote:
Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
I hope that anyone who is reviewing the INVISIBLE LETTER proposal is
aware that this kind of usage with ZWNJ (in fact I think you probably
mean ZWJ) is not at all part of the proposal, but is nothing more than
a speculative extenstion of it dreamed up by Philippe. And it is one
which has many potential problems.
However, it may be indicative of the sort of confusion that INVISIBLE
LETTER may cause.
That is to say, the benefits of creating a separate character to
disunify the diacritic-carrying function from SPACE are certainly real,
but so is the likelihood that people will confuse its functionality with
that of ZWSP and ZWJ and ZWNJ and ZWNBSP, and invent bizarre
combinations thereof.
Most technological advances bring with them the possibility of misuse,
but that is a poor argument to reject the advances. In this case, if
there is a danger of confusion, the correct way to handle the issue is
to explain the correct functions clearly in the text of the standard,
with a summary in the glyph table. The Unicode consortium cannot be
responsible for people breaking its clearly stated rules and so
confusing themselves.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
