From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 07:51:07 EST
The names do NOT always provide correct descriptions of the
characters. This is especially true for "digraph" and "ligature"
(and in the case of U+00E6 too), as well as (e.g.) SCRIPT CAPITAL P,
which is neither script, nor capital (it's lowercase), though
it is a p... In addition, there are different flavours of ligatures.
E.g., it is quite legitimate to render, e.g. LIGATURE FI as an f followed
by an i, no ligation, whereas that is not allowed for the ae
ligature/letter, nor for the oe ligature.
From: Pim Blokland
> John Cowan schreef:
> > Digraphs and ligatures are both made by combining two glyphs. In a
> > the glyphs remain separate but are placed close together.
> In a ligature,
> > the glyphs are fused into a single glyph.
> Oh, in that case I must say I think the UnicodeData.txt file
> doesn't do a
> very good job.
> For instance, the Danish ae (U+00E6) is not designated a
> ligature, but the
> Dutch ij (U+0133) is, even though the "a" and "e" are clearly fused
> together, while the "i" and "j" aren't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 08:30:17 EST