RE: logos, symbols, and ligatures (RE: Encoding Personal Use Ideographs)

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Sun Nov 04 2007 - 17:29:32 CST

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: logos, symbols, and ligatures (RE: Encoding Personal Use Ideographs)"

    Adam Twardoch wrote:
    > In German, it is considered correct to only use ligatures within one
    > part of a compound word, but not across the parts. For example, in the
    > same text, you would use the "fl" ligature in the word "fliegen" (to
    > fly) and you would NOT use a ligature in the word "auflegen"
    > (to put on, to lay sth on sth), since it's "auf+legen".

    (Considering only pure typographic ligatures, not any kind of
    embellishing ligature.)

    Then you would either:

    a) get an ugly overlap for "auflegen" (why accept that?), or
    b) get an ugly extra spacing for "auflegen" (why accept that?), or
    c) there is no need for a ligature anyway, so why force one
       (that is visually distinct from not ligating) for "fliegen", or
    d) need to use a special f glyph to avoid the overlap (and that
       would technically be a ligature, though actually separating
       the glyphs), which is unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing.

    Could you elaborate please.

    B.t.w., if a font has a ligature for <a, ZWJ, e> then that should
    be blocked by the display system, since æ should be achieved only
    by using the dedicated character (as opposed to the fi/fl ligatures).
    And long s is a separate character, the glyph for which should not
    be produced by a short s.

            /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 04 2007 - 17:31:47 CST