From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 13:34:28 EST
At 09:55 AM 3/10/2003, Joop Jagers wrote:
>Creating separate glyphs for pairs of characters is IMO a bad solution: none
>of these glyphs is present in Unicode, so they have to be implemented in the
>PUA, where no compatibility can be guaranteed.
Ligatures do not need to be encoded except as underlying characters: glyph
substitution lookups should be used to map from, e.g. the letters f and j
to an fj ligature. There are, currently, only a handful of applications
supporting such substitution, but this is true of many of the more complex
aspects of Unicode text rendering. Expect this number of applications to
increase significantly over the next couple of years. In the meantime,
using PUA codepoints to encode *any* semantic combination of characters is
a Really Bad Idea that reduces the life expectancy of your document.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
It is necessary that by all means and cunning,
the cursed owners of books should be persuaded
to make them available to us, either by argument
or by force. - Michael Apostolis, 1467
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 14:16:16 EST