Re: Latin Ligatures and Unicode

Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 10:05:36 EST

       ---------------------- Forwarded by Peter
       Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT on 12/30/99 09:40 AM

       From: <> AT Internet on 12/30/99 07:26 AM

       Received on: 12/30/99

       To: Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT, <> AT
       Subject: Re: Latin Ligatures and Unicode

       I agree; we should join these two threads back on the public
       list. Your posting would be a good addition to that, so you
       might repeat it.

       Mark wrote:

> ME>> In the paper I am preparing right now I have two
> > texts printed 20 years apart, in the same font, but
> different uses of > different ligatures, both within
       the same
> text and between the two texts. > These aren't
> ligatures, but they are certainly unpredictable and >
       we really
> need a solid mechanism to handle them.
> KW>It seems to me that this is the kind of example
> *undermines* the case for a ZWL, and strengthens the
       case for
> using markup for this kind of thing.
> I'd agree with Ken here. I've suggested three
> necessary conditions for characters that control
       ligation in
> plain text:
> 1) that there are cases where ligation determines a
> semantic distinction
> 2) that these cases involve ligatures that are not
> by context
> 3) that these cases involve ligatures that are not
> within the given writing system
> It sounds like the example Michael mentions meets only
> second of these conditions.
> (By the way, is there a reason why there is a
       sub-thread on
> this topic that's happening on the unicore list rather
        than on
> the unicode list, where most of the discussion on this
        topic is
> taking place?)
> Peter

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT