Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 16:06:16 CDT

  • Next message: Страхиња Радић: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"

    From: "Страхиња Радић" <>
    > By using this kind of reasoning, we would end up asking why the heck
    > was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with their
    > corresponding atoms

    Today, they would not be encoded. They come from the origins of Unicode, at
    a time where the normalization rules and encoding policies were still in
    their infancy, but where it was desirable to get round-trip compatibility
    with other popular encodings. These characters were present in MacOS
    charsets, and in the default PostScript charset, so they were used in
    plain-text files that were encoded for direct printing without further

    At that time, the processing of ligatures was missing in fonts, due to lack
    of uniform technology to support it portably across heterogeneous systems.
    This time is over, and ligature processing is a required feature to support
    even legacy ISO 8859 charsets like Arabic, or Indian standard charsets
    (ISCII). They are now fully integrated into Unicode, and such system is
    required in practive for almost all scripts that benefit of fine typographic
    features such as ligatures and contextual forms.

    Unicode however cannot remove those characters. They remain there for
    compatibility, they are not recommanded, they are considered compatibility
    characters with canonical decompositions, and not part of normalized forms,
    because their plain-text semantic is strictly equal to the semantic of their
    decomposition in any human languages that use them.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 31 2005 - 16:06:59 CDT