From: Kent Karlsson (kentk@cs.chalmers.se)
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003 - 08:55:51 EDT
Doug Ewell wrote:
...
> > My copy of Photoshop 7 has an interesting image in its (HTML format)
> > help file, page <1_16_4_13.html> on "Using ligatures and old style
> > numerals". It shows three examples of «Type with Ligatures option
> > unselected and selected»: "ct", "fi" and "fh".
> >
> > The bad part of it is that the ligated characters shown (in the
> > sencond and third examples) seem to include a long "s" instead of an
> > "f"... > <ty_06.gif> attached for reference.
>
> There is no "fh" ligature in Unicode,
No, but is is perfectly permissible to ligate f and h anyway, just like you
can (or should) ligate f and j, and g and j (if the glyphs would overlap).
> so Photoshop may have been trying
> to substitute the "closest" available ligature to the one you wanted
> (which is wrong, of course).
>
> Substituting an unligated ſi (U+017F + U+0069) for fi (U+0066
> + U+0069)
> makes no sense at all. If the current font doesn't contain an fi
> ligature (U+FB01), Photoshop should just leave the combination alone.
U+FB01 is a compatibility character that is best avoided to use at all. Formation of
of an f and i ligature should not depend on if the character U+FB01 is supported
or not (though it is likely to be supported if f and i are ligated).
/kent k
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 28 2003 - 11:02:46 EDT