Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ and VS in Latin and other Greek-derived scripts

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 19:05:31 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ and VS in Latin and other Greek-derived scripts"

    On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:32 PM, Ruszlan Gaszanov wrote:

    > 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.

    How many cases of <a ZWJ e> and <o ZWJ e> have you seen?

    (Which, BTW, is another reason why typographers hate the idea of
    requesting ligatures in Latin text using ZWJ. They have to revamp
    their fonts to support it, and it's a pain.)

    In any event, I reiterate: Ligature formation in Latin is a matter of
    stylistic preference. Stylistic preferences do not belong in plain

    For further information, I refer to you TUS 5.0 p. 537.

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 25 2007 - 19:06:32 CST