From: Ruszlan Gaszanov (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 18:32:46 CST
John H. Jenkins wrote:
> The problem is the implication that ligature control belongs in plain
> text. By and large, for Latin it doesn't. For Latin, it doesn't make
> much sense to specify ligature formation involving certain characters
> in the absence of information on what font is being used. Some fonts,
> like Courier, will typically have no or very few ligatures. Other
> fonts, such as Zapfino, will have huge ligature repertoires.
Obviously, if the font doesn't have the proper glyph, it can either display some
fallback glyph(s) or display nothing. For ligatures, the obvious "fallback" behavior
is, of course, to display separate glyphs. What bugs me however, is that in most
cases even sequences like <a ZWJ e> and <o ZWJ e> are rendered as separate glyphs,
even though the vast majority of fonts *does* have proper glyphs for those.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 25 2007 - 18:33:54 CST