From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 10:29:44 EST
> > 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.
> How do you know that? Either "Caesar" or "Cæsar" is good Latin.
That's the other way around. Ligating ae into æ works for Latin
and sometimes English (could be done via a "smart" font). However,
breaking up the *character* æ into separate glyphs for a and e goes
against the reason why this character is at all encoded, and the
*character* æ must always be rendered ligated. This is in contrast to
the character for fi ligature, which is there ONLY for compatibility
reasons, and *should* never even be used. Note that e.g. an fj
ligature is just as legitimate and useful as an fi ligature (fjord,
fjol, fjärde, fjäll, fjorton, fjäder,...), but since it is of no
orthographic significance, there's no character for fj ligature, and
there should not, strictly speaking, have been one for the fi ligature;
both the fi and fj ligatures (and many more) should be generated
just via the rendering system+font.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 11:07:19 EST