Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 11:47:31 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM"

    On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 02:59 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:

    > Using ZWJ to control ligation is admittedly a new concept, and it may
    > not have been taken up yet by many vendors, but that seems like a
    > really
    > poor reason to discourage the Unicode approach.
    > Proprietary layout features in OT-savvy apps like InDesign might get
    > the
    > job done, but wouldn't it be better if app vendors and font vendors
    > would follow the Unicode Standard recommendation? You never know, it
    > might even reduce the number of requests to encode ligatures.

    Remember, though that the Unicode approach is that ZWJ is *not* the
    preferred Unicode way to support things like a discretionary ct
    ligature in Latin text. The standard says that the preferred way to
    handle this is through higher-level protocols.

    I know that you and I disagree with to what extent ligation control
    belongs in plain text, but the standard clearly allows both approaches.
      The ZWJ mechanism is not *the* Unicode approach.

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 12:26:47 EST