Zero-Width Joiner U+200D

[Jukka K. Korpela]

 Asmus Freytag via Unicode (unicode at corp.unicode.org) wrote:

I think we need to look at whether the language accurately reflects what we
> were trying to say. I do know that it was revised at one point, when the
> use of ZWJ was generalized beyond cursive connection.
>

It seems that this took place as early as in Unicode 2.


> The interpretation you suggest may be an inadvertent result of that
> change, or someone had found out why the usage that I always understood as
> intended is for some reason problematic. In that case, it should be
> excluded more explicitly, in my view.
>

In fact, reading chapter 23 onwards, I now see the use of ZWJ’s around a
character to ask for isolated form. It was just so far from the place that
described ZWJ and ZWNJ between adjacent characters, giving the impression
that this is their only use. Perhaps it would help to remove the word
“adjacent” from “U+200D zero width joiner is intended to produce a more
connected rendering of adjacent characters than would otherwise be the
case, if possible.

The text describes the use of ZWJ for isolated form and shows this in
example 23-1. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

So the answer to Andreas’ question is “yes, it should”, with the value of
“should” roughly as “is intended to, according to the Unicode standard, but
a program that renders Unicode characters is not required to obey, or even
understand, such rendering suggestions”

Jukka
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20230221/0a31febc/attachment.htm>