Re: Ligatures fi and ffi

From: Lokesh Joshi (
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 15:19:47 CDT

  • Next message: Dominikus Scherkl: "Re: AW: Ligatures fi and ffi"

    Yep, to be specific GSUB and GPOS features in OTF. But the downside is that
    apart from the usage of GSUB/GPOS in complex languages as Arabic/Indic, no
    SW uses these features "liga" etc for normal text (Latin), some good support
    is there from InDesign.
     ** all Windows text editors etc use usp (uniscribe) which in turn uses
    these GSUB/GPOS for understanding and rendering ligature rules.

     On 6/2/05, Rajeev J Sebastian <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday 01 June 2005 5:24 pm, Hans Aberg wrote:
    > > At 17:44 +0100 2005/06/01, Jon Hanna wrote:
    > > >>If one so wants, one can add all the glyphs one wants, adding a
    > > >>property field saying that it is a rendering character.
    > > >
    > > >No, we cannot. That would completely change the scope and purpose of
    > > > Unicode.
    > >
    > > It would change the scope of the current character set in that respect.
    > >
    > > So what do you feel is the purpose of Unicode? -- In the context the
    > > quote above is taken from, I am speaking about glyphs that are used
    > > to give proper rendering to semantic characters.
    > I may not fully understand this thread, but what you are saying, has
    > already
    > been implemented: TrueType Open and OpenType Font handle ligatures (for
    > any
    > language) by tagging a ligature glyph with the semantic (unicode)
    > codepoints.
    > So the ffi ligature is tagged with "f+f+i". Similiar things are done for
    > placement of diacritics, and also optionally using positioning instead of
    > precomposing the ligatures into unencoded positions in the font file.
    > Rajeev J Sebastian

    Contact me @ lokeshjoshi AT gmail/yahoo/hotmail

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 15:20:45 CDT