From: Jon Hanna (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 17:35:33 CST
> Isn't percent sign a visual "ligature" of zero-slash-zero --
> regardless of any
> mathmatical implications?
No it isn't. It may be derived from that, but it's long since become a
> Isn't "fli" a visual "ligature" -- and absolutely nothing
> more than a visual
> combination of three glyphs, with no alteration in meaning?
Yes it is. I don't know of an fli character, though there are fl, fi, ffl
and ffi ligatures encoded, but this is for compatibility with legacy
encodings. This is not the recommended way of ligating letters, and some
ligatures that should arguably be included for completeness aren't encoded
because they weren't encoded in the legacy encodings.
(As an aside, does anyone agree that the text in the Unicode Standard would
look nicer if they ligated fi?)
> For an obscure symbol like this, it doesn't seem appropriate
> to move from
> "ligature" to characterhood
Whether it is a character or a ligature is entirely unrelated to its
> How curious.
When I'm curious about something I act on that curiosity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 05 2005 - 17:34:06 CST