Re: Dutch IJ, again

Philippe Verdy continued:

> From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@xxxxxxxxx>
> > From: "Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin" <antonio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > On 2003.05.25, 00:00, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > even if the Dutch language considers it as a single letter, in a
> > > > way similar to the Spanish "ch"
> > >
> > > I see one major difference: When you apply extra wide inter-char
> > > distance, you (should) get, f.i.:
> > > K  o  r  t  r  ij  k     and not     K  o  r  t  r  i  j  k
> > > but    E  l  c  h  e     and not     E  l  ch  e
> > > This is common practice in both spanish and dutch typography, ISTK.
> > > I was told in this forum that the surest way to keep this working in
> > > Unicode texts is to use "i<WJ>j" for Dutch and plain "ij" for other
> > > languages.
> > 
> > Well, I don't know who told you, but WORD JOINER only affects
> > linebreak behavior, not intercharacter spacing.
> 
> I think he meant <ZWJ> (the zero-width joiner) used as as markup to 
> create a ligated variant of a pair of characters in some languages 
> that offer two very distinct forms (I think about Brahmic scripts 
> such as Devanagari)...

No, not ZWJ, either.

U+2060 WORD JOINER (WJ) impacts line breaking behavior -- not the
     applicable concept here.
     
U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER (ZWJ) impacts cursive connection and/or
     ligation -- not the applicable concept here.
     
U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER (CGJ) is the relevant character.