Re: Ligatures fi and ffi (was: Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1)

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 09:51:35 CDT

Next message: Antoine Leca: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"

Previous message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"
In reply to: Hans Aberg: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"
Next in thread: Hans Aberg: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Reply: Hans Aberg: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:

>> The characters above were added for backward compatibility with
>> existing character sets. This is known and undisputed, and is not
>> due to alternative interpretations of the character-glyph model.
>
> Implicit in my statement is that one can do such an interpretation if
> one wants Unicode to move forward with respect to this issue.

"Move forward" in what way? By encoding more precomposed Latin
ligatures?

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

Next message: Antoine Leca: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Previous message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"
In reply to: Hans Aberg: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"
Next in thread: Hans Aberg: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Reply: Hans Aberg: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 09:53:26 CDT