From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 16:29:20 CDT
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> Nah. The question is which "ligatures" (I prefer "compound forms") are
> required by Generally Accepted Principles of Arabic Writing. That would
> be the lam-alif only; I don't see how one could get rid of it.
Again, you need to be clear whether you are talking about a ligature in a strict technical
sense, i.e. a single glyph representing more than one character, or in a looser sense of
two letters that are written together in a special form. As I explained in my earlier
message, demonstrated with VOLT lookup syntax, it is perfectly possible to render the
lam_alif 'ligature' without using a ligature glyph. It will still look like the
traditional and obligatory typeform, but it will not be a single glyph: it will be two
special glyphs, contextually substituted and linked using either a cursive attachment
anchor or simple kerning.
This is what I mean when I say that Arabic can be typeset without using ligatures: I'm not
talking about styles of disconnected Arabic, or Arabic without the obligatory lam_alif
shaping. I'm talking about typesetting technologies for Arabic in which multiple
characters are never rendered using a single glyph. I am using the term ligature in this
strict technical sense.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC email@example.com Currently reading: Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was An autobiography from the Jesuit underground, by William Weston SJ War (revised edition), by Gwynne Dyer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 14 2005 - 16:31:59 CDT