Re: Ligatures (was: FAQ entry)

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 11:44:38 EST

  • Next message: Kent Karlsson: "RE: Ligatures (qj)"

    Andrew C. West <andrewcwest at alumni dot princeton dot edu> wrote:

    >> I suspect it would end when you start talking about combinations like
    >> qj and fþ that are unlikely to appear in natural language text.
    > You should know better than to make rash statements like this on the
    > Unicode list !
    > I don't know about qj, but fþ is a not uncommon combination in Old
    > English, e.g. hæfþ (3rd person singular of the verb habban "to have").

    Most of the fonts I see on a day-to-day basis have NO ligatures except
    fi and fl. Between that and the complete lack of support for ligatures
    in MS Word -- a program which really should know better -- I guess I
    don't think of ligatures being available to the common man (as opposed
    to professional typesetters) as much as I used to.

    When commonly available fonts don't even cover ffi, ffl, ft, and so
    forth, and commonly available Windows software can't used the ones that
    are there today, I imagine it might take some time before you start
    seeing precomposed ligature glyphs for qj and fþ.

    That said, I concede that major European languages should not be the
    sole determining factor for which ligatures are supported and which are
    not. I also concede that, as someone who is not a typographer or
    fontmaker, I probably shouldn't have jumped into this thread in the
    first place. Take it away, font guys.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:30:03 EST