Re: CGJ for Two Greek Ligatures?

Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 20:53:40 CST

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: CGJ for Two Greek Ligatures?"

    Hi Jon,

    I believe your analysis is incorrect. You leave no room for the period when
    separate characters are moving *toward* a unitary identity -- as regarded
    conceptually and/or as used in actual printing. And you leave no room for a
    permanently incomplete unification, with acceptable variation in normal use.
    And you leave no room for a unified symbol in printing use, which nonetheless
    still has a clearly separable meaning conceptually, to which it could
    acceptably default if really necessary.

    You can write the words "one divided by four" or you can write "1/4" as three
    characters, or you can write "1/4" as a ligature to make it fit in nicely with
    your text.

    In this Greek context, "epsilon/omicron" and "eta/omega" still very much have
    a separable conceptual identity -- the slash is literally an instruction to
    the reader, saying use one "or" the other in your conjugation.

    And from the badly kerned triplets I've seen, it has certainly been *formed*
    as a ligature in printing tradition.

    And in a practical sense today, as well, it would be silly for me to invent a
    post-ligature identity for this -- as the separate characters are perfectly
    readable -- just like 1/4 -- without the ligature if necessary.

    Thank goodness Unicode has the flexibility in this one situation, if none
    other, that the opinions a very small number of people can't rule the world
    for everyone else who uses typography!


    Jon Hanna wrote:
    > > 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
    > separate character.
    > > 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
    > obscurity.
    > > How curious.
    > When I'm curious about something I act on that curiosity.
    > Regards,
    > Jon Hanna
    > Work: <>
    > Play: <>
    > Chat: <irc://>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 05 2005 - 20:39:42 CST