From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 10:40:42 EST
> > Typographically, it's a ligature either way.
> You mean that both ae and ij should be called ligatures,
> although one is fused and the other isn't?
No. What I'm trying to say is that the names do not really matter.
While there is a strive to give "good" names to characters,
they sometimes are slightly amiss, and there is nothing one
can do about it. Not once they are standardised. Before
that, you can argue back and forth, and there is inevitable
compromise. Esp. since it does not *really* matter very much.
> OK, I can live with that. I'd rather the ij were called a
> digraph, though.
> The ij is considered by some to be one letter in Dutch, and when written
> down, an "i" and a "j" together look very much like a written y with
> diaeresis. (See fonts like Script MT.) So I can understand foreigners
> getting confused and encoding it that way (as a y with
> diaeresis). But it shouldn't.
It is sometimes written ÿ (lowercase only, IFAIK) also in Dutch...
But that is not the ij ligature character we were talking about.
> > For signs (on buildings) IJ is sometimes "fused".
> That may be a kerning problem.
That would be major kerning, since it looks like a U with a
gap at the lower left...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 11:13:47 EST