Den 2011-09-11 01:23, skrev "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com>:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:53:34 +0200
> Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14_at_telia.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
> A font need not support such ligation,
True.
> but a glyph for U+FB01 must
> ligate the letters -
And this "ligature" can look just like "fi" in that font.
I see no reason whatsoever that it could not.
> otherwise it's not U+FB01!
Of course it would be.
> In such a case, I do
> not see the need for the dot.
That does not follow.
/Kent K
> Richard.
>
>
Received on Sat Sep 10 2011 - 19:12:39 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Sep 10 2011 - 19:12:40 CDT