Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures

From: James H. Cloos Jr. ([email protected])
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 16:33:50 EDT

Next message: Andrew Cunningham: "Re: Combining diacriticals and Cyrillic"

Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Kirk <[email protected]> writes:

Peter> Maybe, but it is hardly realistic to expect all existing
Peter> Turkish and Azeri text to be recoded to insert a character in
Peter> the middle of each f - i sequence.

But a lot of it already does do that. In TeX Turkish uses f{}i to
block the (font’s) ligation. ’roff does something similar. I’m
sure all of the other text-source publishing systems do as well.

Even the WYSI(NR)WYG¹ must be doming something to accomplish that.

-JimC

¹ NR ≡ Not Really

Next message: Andrew Cunningham: "Re: Combining diacriticals and Cyrillic"
Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Ligatures in Turkish and Azeri, was: Accented ij ligatures"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 17:25:18 EDT