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

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Fri Jul 11 2003 - 07:12:35 EDT

  • Next message: Jon Hanna: "RE: Combining diacriticals and Cyrillic"

    > Note also: the Soft_Dotted property was created and considered
    > specially for Turkish and Azeri.

    Adding to the long, and unfortunately getting longer, list of misleading
    statements from Philippe! No, the reason for the Soft_Dotted property
    was/is to mark which characters (regardless of language) that don't
    intrinsic dot(s) above subglyph(s) when (another) combining character
    is applied to it (and to then keep the dot(s) a combining dot above or a
    combining diaeresis, as appropriate, must be used explicitly).

    > In this language context the ASCII i is always rendered with a dot,
    > kept also for uppercases.

    I hope you don't mean to use a dotted glyph for U+0069!

    B.t.w. It is perfectly legal to use a ligature (in the TECHNICAL sense,
    perhaps not the typographic sense) for <f, i> also for Turkish and
    languages, especially if the f and i would otherwise overlap. The point
    is that <f, i> and <f, dotless i> must be clearly distinguishable for
    languages, and that may mean that one has to use a TECHNICAL ligature
    for <f, i> having a glyph where the dot on the i is clearly visible (the
    horizontal bar of the f and the top serif of the i may still merge).
    That may be done by whatever means that is better-looking for that
    particular font, e.g. moving the loop of the f to the left, right, or
    (Using ZWNJ should not do that, if correctly implemented, but can
    instead, mistakenly, result in overlapping f and dot-of-i glyphs, since
    even a technical ligature, IIUC (correct me if I'm wrong), would be

                    /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 11 2003 - 08:08:36 EDT