Re: ligature usage - WAS: How do we find out what assigned code points aren't normally used in text?

From: Kent Karlsson <>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:53:34 +0200

Den 2011-09-10 23:06, skrev "Richard Wordingham"

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:19:27 +0200
> Kent Karlsson <> wrote:
>> Den 2011-09-10 20:58, skrev "Jukka K. Korpela" <>:
>>> According to Oxford Style
>>> Manual, one should not use the fi ligature in Turkish, as that
>>> would obscure the distinction between normal i and dotless i (ž).
>> It does not make perfect sense to me. Rather that:
> I believe the point is that the glyph of fi U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE
> FI

Which is a character that should not be use for any language. Typographic
ligatures (if any) should be formed automatically by the font (and font
handling system).

> is unsuitable for Turkish because it is normally undotted, or at
> least, the dot is barely visible. (Confusingly, my e-mail client chooses
> a dotted glyph!)

IMO, a glyph (if any) for that compatibility character should look *exactly*
like an "fi" (after automatic ligature formation, if that is done for "fi")
in the font used. So if no ligature for "fi" is formed, the glyph for U+FB01
(if any) should have a dot just like "fi" would have a dot. (I know, this is
not commonly the case at the moment.)

    /Kent K

> Richard.
Received on Sat Sep 10 2011 - 16:55:55 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Sep 10 2011 - 16:56:06 CDT