Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures

From: Thomas Lotze (
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 11:22:52 EST

  • Next message: Thomas Lotze: "Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"

    On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:06:53 +0000 wrote:

    > The ZWJ (zero-width
    > joiner), for example, requests the OS and font to provide a connected
    > or joined glyph in substitution for the string in the display, if such
    > a glyph is available in the font.

    In the meantime, I found out about ZWJ (this one could be mentioned in
    the FAQ, BTW). Now I agree that it is preferable not to use ligature
    code points in documents. However, this isn't a matter of principle, it
    just avoids having to resolve ligatures into their constituents when,
    eg, searching documents, and requires instead ignoring the ZWJ, which is
    easier to do.

    Regardless of how the document is coded, the fact remains that ligature
    glyph shapes have to be stored in the font, at some code point. IMO,
    they might just as well be given official code points instead of being
    banned to the PUA. A side effect of making them official could be that
    their use and, more importantly, their being provided in fonts in the
    first place, is encouraged, which would be good for the quality of
    computer typesetting.

    > One popular, upcoming method of providing such substitutions involves
    > OpenType technology.

    As long as this doesn't mean ligature support in conjunction with
    Unicode becomes (at least in practice) restricted to Opentype fonts,
    this seems to be a good approach indeed.

    Cheers, Thomas

    Thomas Lotze            

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 11:55:38 EST