Thanks for the link -- I hadn't been watching... Now, Garamond Premier
Pro's ch and ck are real digraphs, not ligatures, as already pointed
out. I attach an example: top line without ch-digraph, bottom line
with the digraph applied. (And I used German for the example :-).<br>
<br>
as ever,<br>
Rembrandt<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 21:26, Diederick C. Niehorster <span dir="ltr"><diederick@niehorster.eu></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Rembrant,<br>
<br>
Slightly off-topic possibly, but just got to reading this:<br>
<a href="http://www.typophile.com/node/43911" target="_blank">http://www.typophile.com/node/43911</a>. Might be interesting to you. I am<br>
not sure what the digraphs look like in that font, but in general, are<br>
you sure you want to cause the reader possible distraction due to<br>
uncommon digraphs because they look better? Curious for your views on<br>
this (p.s. do you have a short sample paragraph, I am also curious to<br>
see what the digraphs look like in Garamond Premier Pro.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Dee<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Rembrandt Wolpert <<a href="mailto:wolpert@uark.edu">wolpert@uark.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> thank you David for the caution note. I am a native German speaker, so I am<br>
> aware of German hyphenation rules: they are indeed quite different from<br>
> English.<br>
><br>
> as ever,<br>
> Rembrandt<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 19:32, David Perry <<a href="mailto:hospes.primus@verizon.net">hospes.primus@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> One caution for those who want to try altering the features. I recall<br>
>> reading that in German rules for syllabification (and therefore<br>
>> hyphenation and linebreaking) have some niceties that English speakers<br>
>> may not know about. (Apologies: I can make my way through a scholarly<br>
>> article in German but cannot say that I truly know the language.) If<br>
>> you move the ch and ck digraphs into the default features for Latin<br>
>> script, you may get some unexpected results. The order in which<br>
>> features are processed in an OT font can be be important, and there can<br>
>> be interactions with software that does linebreaking (when, e.g., it no<br>
>> longer limits the digraphs to use in German and may apply them<br>
>> inappropriately). I haven't tried this, just a heads-up.<br>
>><br>
>> David<br>
>><br>
>> Peter Baker wrote:<br>
>> > Rembrandt Wolpert wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> > know: I don't think so. It seems to me a pretty simple fix to use<br>
>> > FontForge to edit the font (moving the t_h ligature and any others<br>
>> > you're sure you want to use all the time from dlig to liga).<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> XeTeX mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:postmaster@tug.org">postmaster@tug.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex" target="_blank">http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> 人有不為也而後可有為<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> XeTeX mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:postmaster@tug.org">postmaster@tug.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex" target="_blank">http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br> 人有不為也而後可有為<br>