From: Pim Blokland (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 08:35:13 EST
Kent Karlsson schreef:
>> correction; but they would benefit more from adding a pixel or so of
> I was thinking more about high resolution (where pixels are so small
> you nearly cannot see them)...
Sorry, more misunderstandings. What I meant by an extra pixel or so was to add a pixel at a time until there's a visible amount of space between the characters.
I also tried to say I agreed that merging parts of characters looks worse, in my eyes, than moving the characters apart. That probably didn't come out right. I never meant to say moving the characters apart was the best solution.
Moving only the offending accent mark rather than the entire (composite) character might help in some cases, but this technique also should be used with care. Like in the case of "Te", if you have a very wide T and a very small e, any accent on the e would end up to the far right of it if you force avoiding collision with the T. So in this case I think you can't help putting the e and the T further apart if the e has an accent than if it doesn't.
This also depends on the font. There is no universal solution!
> You seem to have missed a part of my message:
> :: Note that by "ligature" I don't always mean a typographic ligature
> :: (nicely(?) joined "ink"), but just technically a ligature (a single
No, sorry, I just didn't want to go into that again, because the lack of formal meanings of words like these is just what got this whole discussion started.
I still think everybody were to benefit if the Unicode Consortium would publish a list of words like these and what is meant by them exactly. And if everybody would abide by that list, of course.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 09:10:46 EST