[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: questions & comments
- To: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: questions & comments
- From: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:34:17 +0200 (MET DST)
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <199807070959.LAA17253@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de>
- References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980706205339.32503Aemail@example.com><199807070959.LAA17253@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de>
» Not sure what you mean. If the encoding has slots for F-ligatures
» they have to be filled as good as possible, even if it is rather
» pointless to have them for small-caps fonts. Should we leave them
» empty instead? I don't think that would be much better either.
it's nonsense to fake ligatures that are never directly accessed. What
makes sense is to make active the ligature pointing to ffi ,
e.g. _only_ when the ffi glyph does exist.
This design decision in fontinst (well, in latin.mtx and in the ETX
files) has always puzzled me.
Th. Bouche <http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~bouche/>
« no signature last night »