On 9/29/2019 3:02 PM, Suki Venkat wrote:
Then went on to hack the hyph-ta.texfile and did "mktexfmt xelatex"
to produce nice results using XeLaTeX.
It turned out the uni200B was not defined in the font, although uni200C
and uni200D were defined.
Then managed define uni200B in fontforge and it does seem to produce the
same result even if the uni200B (ZWSP or DLB) is defined in the font or not.
I'm speaking from ignorance here--I know nothing of the internal
workings of xetex--but it seems to me that the question of defining a
glyph for U+200B is beside the point. It should not, it seems to me,
have a glyph. Instead, xetex should break the line or not when it
encounters this code point, and then--regardless of the line
break--delete the character. It's a zero width character, and its
height is irrelevant (unlike a strut), so there's no shape to show.
--
Mike Maxwell
"I am, by a flood, borne back to that wondrous
period, ere time itself can be said to have begun;
for time began with man." --Herman Melville,
Moby Dick
