Re: Submission to ConScript Unicode Registry: Sylabica

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Oct 15 2007 - 02:35:42 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Submission to ConScript Unicode Registry: Sylabica"

    Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:

    > I'm not sure however that you must call them "ligatures" (ligatures
    > are normally typographic enhancements for legibility and they remain
    > optional even if they are often recommanded, depending on the font
    > styles actually used).

    Ligation may be language-dependent as well as font-dependent. I see no
    reason why a given ligature cannot be declared "mandatory" even if fonts
    and display engines might render separate glyphs (which would be
    considered less than complete support). I did exactly that with

    > If the ligatures are optional, it's best not to encode them at all,
    > like you did; but if they carry a semantic distinction in your
    > notation, then only they become mandatory and merit specific encoding
    > (and so they are no longer ligatures but unbreakable letters or
    > clusters).

    I think what Martin has in his Sylabica can be broken into three

    1. true typographic ligatures
    2. combining marks
    3. contextual forms

    It might be interesting to go through the chart on page 7 and see which
    are which.

    Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
    NEW URL -->  <-- NEW URL  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 15 2007 - 02:38:56 CDT