Re: Latin ligatures and Unicode

From: Gary Roberts (
Date: Tue Jan 04 2000 - 17:13:21 EST

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Asmus Freytag wrote:

> Gary wrote:
> >> I see ZWL
> >> as a substitute for markup having a span of two or three characters, which
> >> still makes it attractive as a new character sollution. It also seems
> >> more flexible. Say that I often deal with fonts that have only ligature
> >> pairs, given the choice of ff i or f fi, I always prefer ff i,
> >> but my colleague prefers f fi. We both prefer ffi as a single ligature
> >> if it exists in the font. What markup gives each of us the results we
> >> prefer? For &=ZWL, the answer is f&fi for me, and ff&i for my colleague.
> >> Note that ZWNL is not useful for this case.
> actually, if you assume 'ligation enabled' across the document, then
> you would place a <ZWNL> between the f and the i to get ff i.

Then you would not get the prefered ffi ligature either. In my example,
I wanted ffi if it existed, but wanted to specify ff i versus f fi if the
particular font did not support ffi.


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