Re: How to write Armenian ligatures?
"Andrew West" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 23/11/2007, John H. Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The common wisdom about Latin ligatures seems to be to avoid the > > presentation forms, and to insert ZWJ between the two "normal" > > letters (or do nothing and expect the software to ligate > > automatically, which is much more problematic). I would be > > surprised if this were any different for Armenian. > > Actually, the common wisdom about Latin ligatures is to avoid the > presentation forms and to use whatever ligature controls your rich- > text system provides. ZWJ is "designed for marking the unusual cases > where ligatures...are required. [It is] not to be used in all cases > where ligatures...are desired; instead, [it is] meant only for > overriding the normal behavior of text." (TUS p. 537) Sounds to me as if TUS and Doug are saying the same thing : you can use ZWJ to request ligation in situations where ligation would not normally occur; but you should not use ZWJ if the rendering system would be expected to make the ligature by default. E.g. for modern English, "st"and "ct" ligatures are not normally used, so by default most fonts won't make them for you. Furthermore, as TUS p.537 says, "the rendering system cannot define the locations where ligatures are possible, because there are many languages in which ligature formation requires more information. For example, in some languages, ligatures are never formed across syllable boundaries", so it may be necessary for the author of a plain text document to explicitly mark where the ligatures should be using ZWJ. Of course, this won't work with most fonts, but intelligent and forward-thinking fonts such as Code2000 do allow users this level of typographic control for Latin text. As none of the Armenian fonts on my system give ligatures by default, it would seem to me that ligature formation is not the default behaviour in Armenian, and therefore it would be right and proper to to use ZWJ to mark the unusual cases where ligatures are required, as per last paragraph of TUS p.537. Andrew P.S. I too am quite disconcerted by the number of FAQs that suddenly spring up whenever James puts forward a position that some UTC member or other disagrees with.