On 06/29/2002 04:47:17 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>This use of two routes to the same glyph in an OpenType font, one newer
>method together with one older method, seems to me to be a development,
>which James Kass thought of,
I can assure you, the idea did not originate with James Kass, and the
concensus of the professional font development has, on the whole, been that
that very practice needs to be *abandoned* .
>My point in citing The Respectfully Experiment in the recent post is that
>even though the reasons for not including any more ligatures in Unicode
may
>have seemed totally reasonable at the time that that decision was made,
the
>idea of James Kass that the glyphs for ligatures in an OpenType font could
>also be accessed directly does add new evidence to the situation.
It is not new evidence, and the decision *not* to directly encode any
further ligatures was made with a very thorough awareness that what James
did was possible (and has been used in some commercially available fonts).
> In the
>light of this new evidence, I am wondering whether the decision not to
>encode any new ligatures in regular Unicode could possibly be looked at
>again.
Given the absense of any new evidence, I think it will not be.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Jun 29 2002 - 16:10:42 EDT