From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 24 2007 - 10:10:06 CST
David Starner wrote,
> And why wouldn't we want to discard ligature information from plain
> text? It's way down the list of things I'd want to preserve in a
> text, far after italics, bold, page breaks, page size, font size, etc.
As they say, different strokes for different folks.
> The only reason to preserve I can see is a digital facsimile, which is
> not a plain text application. In a new text, carefully typeset, one
> may want to go through and selectively add or subtract ligatures, but
> that's hardly plain text either.
People generate PDFs from plain text and also from HTML. If I were
using HTML for the purpose of reproducing a page from a two hundred
year old book, I would want to preserve the ligature information. As
something of a purist, I would want my reproduction to have ligatures
where the original had ligatures, and not have ligatures where the
original hadn't any. If left to the whims of some kind of automatic
ligature formation, I would have to go through the text inserting ZWNJs
anywhere I thought that an unwanted ligature might form.
Of course, I understand that opinions and expectations differ. People
should be able to choose applications and methods which serve their
needs best. It depends on the level of granularity wanted. For example,
many people would be happy to plain textually reproduce the title on the
cover of the latest Unicode book as: "The Unicode Standard 5.0". The next
person might take it a step further: "THE Unicode STANDARD 5.0".
But, neither of those is as accurate as I would want. I'd have to enter
"THE Unıcode STANDARD 5.0". Any of the three choices are legible in
plain text and there are no real semantic differences in the eye and
mind of the beholder.
Many people probably wouldn't use Latin ligatures in plain text. But it's
nice to have the option.
P.S. - To keep this on-subject, the same goes for Armenian ligatures.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 24 2007 - 10:13:19 CST