You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was revisiting the Telugu chapter of Unicode and noticed the paragraph on nakāra-pollu, which I didn't remember from last time....
This isn't covered in this repo's docs, so I'm wondering if it should be. Specifically, the way Unicode Standard frames it, the sequence "Na,Halant" (U+0C28,U+0C4D) can have either of two forms (which is fine, and up to the font AFAICT), but it mentions specifically
"The character U+200C zero width non-joiner can be used to prevent interaction of this sequence with following consonants, as shown in Table 12-31."
and give two examples where the sequence is "Na,Halant,ZWNJ,Da" (U+0C28,U+0C4D,U+200C,U+0C26). Seems that this is a standard prevent-conjunct-formation usage, but if that's true, I'm curious why it is given a separate discussion (and table of illustrations). Is there something needing special treatment here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It looks to me like the ZWNJ usage here does not alter the logic unless the font does something out-of-the-ordinary with GSUB ligation to substitute in the nakara-pollu form. But it may be worth putting in a mention of it as we do for other alternate forms of consonants. Or maybe an illustration.
I was revisiting the Telugu chapter of Unicode and noticed the paragraph on nakāra-pollu, which I didn't remember from last time....
This isn't covered in this repo's docs, so I'm wondering if it should be. Specifically, the way Unicode Standard frames it, the sequence "Na,Halant" (U+0C28,U+0C4D) can have either of two forms (which is fine, and up to the font AFAICT), but it mentions specifically
and give two examples where the sequence is "Na,Halant,ZWNJ,Da" (U+0C28,U+0C4D,U+200C,U+0C26). Seems that this is a standard prevent-conjunct-formation usage, but if that's true, I'm curious why it is given a separate discussion (and table of illustrations). Is there something needing special treatment here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: