Re: Ligatured characters

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 2000 - 14:21:50 EDT

Next message: Misha Wolf: "Re: surrogate terminology"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: surrogate terminology (was Re: Surrogate support in *ML?"
Maybe in reply to: William Overington: "Ligatured characters"
Next in thread: Otto Stolz: "Re: Ligatured characters"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> (One might respond saying that in Turkish there would
> be a semantic difference, but that is not comparing apples with apples
> since the ligated form would be a ligation of f with dotless-i. The example
> would be rephrased as comparing ligated and non-ligated forms of <f,
> dotless-i>.)

In fact high-quality Turkish text does not include the fi ligature at all, AFAIK.
This would be a property of a proper Turkish font.

-- 
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein

Next message: Misha Wolf: "Re: surrogate terminology"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: surrogate terminology (was Re: Surrogate support in *ML?"
Maybe in reply to: William Overington: "Ligatured characters"
Next in thread: Otto Stolz: "Re: Ligatured characters"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT