From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Mar 02 2004 - 14:54:17 EST
At 07:22 PM 3/1/2004, Kevin Brown wrote:
>"Adam Twardoch" <list.adam@twardoch.com> wrote:
>
> >It doesn't matter whether a ligature is "mandatory" or not. Ligatures should
> >not be encoded _at all_, and these encoded in the Alphabetic Presentation
> >Forms are an uncomfortable compromise, and exception.
>
>I completely accept that the vast majority of ligatures can be decomposed
>into existing encoded characters without any loss of design integrity and
>therefore the case for encoding them is weak (and probably non-existent
>in the context of the new font technologies such as OpenType)
>
>But can someone explain to me why a ligatures such as ct which CANNOT be
>accurately decomposed into individual characters (at least, it can't if
>it's designed PROPERLY) shouldn't be encoded in its own right?
The reason is that font technology does not 'compose' ligatures, but
substitutes one glyph sequence for another.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 02 2004 - 15:31:05 EST