From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 02 2004 - 14:54:17 EST
At 07:22 PM 3/1/2004, Kevin Brown wrote:
>"Adam Twardoch" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >It doesn't matter whether a ligature is "mandatory" or not. Ligatures should
> >not be encoded _at all_, and these encoded in the Alphabetic Presentation
> >Forms are an uncomfortable compromise, and exception.
>I completely accept that the vast majority of ligatures can be decomposed
>into existing encoded characters without any loss of design integrity and
>therefore the case for encoding them is weak (and probably non-existent
>in the context of the new font technologies such as OpenType)
>But can someone explain to me why a ligatures such as ct which CANNOT be
>accurately decomposed into individual characters (at least, it can't if
>it's designed PROPERLY) shouldn't be encoded in its own right?
The reason is that font technology does not 'compose' ligatures, but
substitutes one glyph sequence for another.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 02 2004 - 15:31:05 EST