Re: How do we find out what assigned code points aren't normally used in text?

Den 2011-09-09 21:24, skrev "Karl Williamson" <public_at_khwilliamson.com>:

> On 07/06/2011 04:23 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether the FB05/FB06 instance is important enough to add
>> or not. Neither of those compabitility ligatures should ordinarily be used
>> in text, anyway ...
>>
>> --Ken
>
> I'm wondering what other characters might not ordinarily be used in
> text, or how to discover which ones aren't. We're discovering that
> getting these ligatures to work is quite hard, and it would be nice to

How do you mean "getting these ligatures to work"? These particular
ligatures would be formed (automatically) by specialty fonts only.
Not for "run of the mill" fonts. There are several other ligatures
that *should* be formed (automatically) by "run of the mill" fonts:
for instance the "fj" ligature, just to mention one that I find
particularly important (and that does not have a compatibility code
point).

Neither for "run of the mill" ligatures (like "fi", "fl", fj", "ft",...)
nor for specialty ligatures (like ligature of long s and t, or any
other ligature with long s) should the compatibility code points be
used. One reason in particular is that (compatibility) code points
exist only for a small subset of such ligatures. And that will remain
true, since Unicode/10646 will not allocate code points for any more
(typographic) ligatures. The ones already encoded are for compatibility
only.

Note that I am here referring to purely *typographic* ligatures.
*Not* to ligatures that have "graduated" to letter (like æ or ø) or
orthographic (like ¦) status. (I realise that LAM-ALEPH ligatures
would be borderline from this description, but the consensus is
not to use any of the LAM-ALEPH ligature *characters*, but regard
it as a required typographic ligatures of character pairs.)

    /Kent K

> know where it's really appropriate to expend the implementation effort.
>
Received on Fri Sep 09 2011 - 15:41:41 CDT