From: John H. Jenkins (jenkins@apple.com)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 19:05:31 CST
On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:32 PM, Ruszlan Gaszanov wrote:
> Obviously, if the font doesn't have the proper glyph, it can either
> display some
> fallback glyph(s) or display nothing. For ligatures, the obvious
> "fallback" behavior
> is, of course, to display separate glyphs. What bugs me however, is
> that in most
> cases even sequences like <a ZWJ e> and <o ZWJ e> are rendered as
> separate glyphs,
> even though the vast majority of fonts *does* have proper glyphs for
> those.
>
How many cases of <a ZWJ e> and <o ZWJ e> have you seen?
(Which, BTW, is another reason why typographers hate the idea of
requesting ligatures in Latin text using ZWJ. They have to revamp
their fonts to support it, and it's a pain.)
In any event, I reiterate: Ligature formation in Latin is a matter of
stylistic preference. Stylistic preferences do not belong in plain
text.
For further information, I refer to you TUS 5.0 p. 537.
========
John H. Jenkins
jenkins@apple.com
jhjenkins@mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 25 2007 - 19:06:32 CST