2016-09-28 22:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Wordingham < [email protected]>:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:30:04 -0700 > "Doug Ewell" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Technically I see one, as bíj́na shound never break between í and > > > j́, > > > > These wor- > > ds should not bre- > > ak at the places wh- > > ere I have broken t- > > hem > > > > but they don't need embedded control characters to enforce that. > > Indeed, there aren't any control characters to control hyphenation. > Indeed, CGJ between default grapheme clusters is often a very good > place to hyphenate. > Who told about CGJ ? But zero-width joiners should prevent such undesired breaking ; the legacy ZWNBSP however does not suggest any ligature but instead will prevent it, by only gluing two grapheme clusters side by side (with just kerning enabled), but without altering these glyphs (like in the capital IJ ligature whose I is shortened and placed on top of the left arm of the J when using ligaturing joiners). In South-Est Asian scripts there are such cases to create complex clusters that also carry semantic distinctions and layout restrictions. the "default grapheme clusters" may not include these complex clusters, but the later are needed. The rules about "default grapheme clusters" are only good for simpler cases where no ligaturing is involved and you don't really care about specific languages (even fonts contain specific data for specific languages, independantly of the script represented).
