From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 13:54:17 CDT
At 20:14 +0300 2005/06/01, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>  The use of optional ligatures cannot be reasonably
>decided on algorithmic grounds alone. Whether you use a ligature for "fi"
>or for "st" is a stylistic choice.
I think that historically, the choice has in part 
been dictated so certain common combinations 
within each language, as well by the fact that 
keeping a large number of glyphs is expensive, 
and possibly cumbersome in printing.
>If you say that ligatures would not be
>needed at character level at all, you are saying that typographic styling
>must be handled elsewhere.
Right. It could be handled by a separate 
rendering character font, which could very large, 
just as the Unicode set. Or, as I pointed out, 
they could be added within the character set, 
possibly as a special type of Unicode characters. 
One can also think of developing smart fonts, 
that can compute ligatures automatically.
>While that's surely a possible view, and shared
>by many, it is far from self-evident.
There are several possibilities, and one needs to 
think carefully before choosing one model over 
another.
>Drawing lines between orthography and typography is sometimes very
>difficult.
Right. Humans like to blend contexts in ways hard to transport to computers.
>It can well be argued that in English, the letter combination
>"ae" (in words of Greek or Latin origin) can be written as a ligature
>with no change in meaning, as a purely stylistic matter. On the other
>hand, in some languages, such a "ligature" is definitely a character on
>its own.
One should note that every ligature can be given 
a semantic use, namely by quoting it directly, 
like in the sentence 'An example of a ligature is 
"Þ" [ligature fi]'. Perhaps textbooks in Arabic 
want to name those ligatures and different letter 
representations explicitly. Many glyphs can thus 
made into semantic objects, by simply 
objectifying them.
-- Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 13:56:29 CDT