Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures

From: Thomas Lotze (
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 13:43:22 EST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: A .notdef glyph"

    On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:40:48 -0600 wrote:

    > You're assuming there is a problem. If I send you a document and I
    > wanted it to display in Comic Sans but you don't have that font on
    > your system, so you end up seeing it in, say, Arial, does that merit a
    > dialog box?

    Depends. For a home user who doesn't care about fonts, it doesn't. For
    someone who cares, it does. If I am interested in some information, I
    don't like if I can't get it just because someone couldn't imagine it
    was a problem.

    > As for providing a
    > notification dialog to say that the text contains < c, ZWJ, t > but
    > that the font doesn't support it, there are no existing mechanisms to
    > support that at present,

    I don't understand this. Since a font doesn't "do" anything, but
    software using the font does, one could write a rendering engine which
    gives feedback about how well it could complete its job, and a
    typesetting application might elect to make use of that feedback and
    provide a notification dialog or whatever. BTW, as the information about
    available glyphs in a font is independent of character encoding, I don't
    see the relevance of this whole discussion to this list.

    > but it hasn't been demonstrated that there really is any
    > need, and I really don't expect vendors will be hearing too many
    > complaints from users.

    That's no reason. Just because many people don't need a feature, or
    maybe just don't care enough to complain, doesn't mean it shouldn't be
    provided for those who do need it.

    I could well imagine that in a typesetting application, it would make
    sense to be informed on whether a certain typographic feature can or
    cannot be applied. Carefully checking a long document for whether, e.g.,
    a certain pair of glyphs does form a ligature where it is supposed to is
    tedious and error-prone if done by a human, but such routine tasks are
    what computers are good at.

    Cheers, Thomas

    Thomas Lotze            

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 14:55:17 EST