Re: Ligatures fi and ffi

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 11:15:08 CDT

  • Next message: Jon Hanna: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"

    At 07:51 -0700 2005/06/01, Doug Ewell wrote:
    >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

    As such, I only point out possibilities, without giving suggestions
    which way to go.

    If one so wants, one can add all the glyphs one wants, adding a
    property field saying that it is a rendering character. These will
    not then disturb the other characters, which are semantic in nature.
    One reason for doing it, is that if one has a Unicode font, then
    those glyphs become available. It seems me that is just a question of
    how to make these glyphs accessible.

    The above should not be construed as though I suggest that this is
    what one should really do. I can think of many possibilities.

       Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 11:16:28 CDT