On Saturday, July 6, 2002, at 03:42 AM, James Kass wrote:
>
> We certainly agree that ligature use is a choice. I think we diverge
> on just what kind of choice is involved. You consider that ligature
> use is generally similar to bold or italic choices. I consider use of
> ligatures to be mo
At 08:06 PM 7/4/02 +0300, John Hudson wrote:
>>But ligature prohibition is a quite regular feature of German orthography
>>and any Unicode-based system that intends to provide generic support for
>>Latin script use, should be able to support it. As the prohibition is on
>>a case-by-case and wor
All your other good points noted:
At 02:57 PM 7/1/02 -0600, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>>Therefore, I would be much happier if the discussion of the 'standard'
>>case wasn't as anglo-centric and allowed more directly for the fact that
>>while fonts are in control of what ligatures are provided, lay
Kenneth Whistler wrote,
>
> > Another problem with TR28 is that its date is earlier than the date
> > on TR27. This suggests that TR27 is more current.
>
> I don't understand this claim.
>
After misreading the dates and writing the letter last Monday,
the internet connection was lost here f
John H. Jenkins wrote,
>
> There's another level of problem here, too. What if it isn't the author's
> intent, but an artifact of the particular typesetter?
When making an electronic reproduction of a specific text, a purist will
even duplicate any typographical errors found in the source.
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Asmus Freytag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:08 PM
> Therefore, I would be much happier if the discussion of the
> 'standard' case wasn't as anglo-centric and allowed more directly
> for the fact that while fonts are in control of what l
At 19:53 +0300 2002-07-04, John Hudson wrote:
>Well, we need and have (in OpenType and AAT) a general purpose
>mechanism for typesetting texts employing ligatures as deemed fit by
>the professional typographer. The expectation of such a mechanism is
>that layout is applied to 'normal' text to
John Hudson wrote:
> Documents using ZWJ can only be reliably rendered in particular
> fonts. For example, there is no reason why I should not include the
> sequence 'p ZWJ q' in a document, but unless I have a font containing
> a pq ligature I will not be able to render the sequence as intended
At 19:36 +0300 2002-07-04, John Hudson wrote:
>This is not Mac-only behaviour. So far I have yet to see a single
>OpenType font that uses the ZWJ to produce ligatures: they all
>proceed on the basis of applying a layout feature to regular text
>and affecting any sequence (e.g. f i) found in th
At 23:08 7/1/2002, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>Remember also that the simplistic model you present already breaks down
>for German, since the same character pair may or may not allow ligation
>depending on the content and meaning of the text - features that in the
>Unicode model are relegated to *pl
At 14:31 6/30/2002, James Kass wrote:
>Sounds like a giant step backwards from Unicode 3.0.1 (March 2002)
>http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/Unicode3.0.1.html
>(see section "Controlling Ligatures")
>
>This page clearly states that ZWJ is proper for controlling the
>formation of La
At 18:20 6/29/2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Font designers regularly include a glyph for U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE
>FI. It has always been known, and obvious, that a user could access
>this glyph directly by encoding U+FB01. With the advent of OpenType and
>a smart-enough rendering system, the use
[*groans in the audience*]
I know, I know -- another contribution in the endless thread...
In re:
> The Respectfully Experiment
> I used it as evidence that ideas about what should not be
> included in Unicode can change over a period of time as new scientific
> evidence is discovered.
Havi
James Kass said:
> One problem with TR28 is that it is worded so that it appears to
> be "in addition" to earlier guidelines.
It is. The way this works is as follows: The original decision
about the ZWJ as request for ligation was documented in the
Unicode 3.0.1 update notice. That documentatio
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 02:08 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> At 11:34 AM 6/30/02 -0600, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>> Remember, Unicode is aiming at encoding *plain text*. For the bulk of
>> Latin-based languages, ligation control is simply not a matter of *plain
>> text*that is, the message is
At 11:34 AM 6/30/02 -0600, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>Remember, Unicode is aiming at encoding *plain text*. For the bulk of
>Latin-based languages, ligation control is simply not a matter of *plain
>text*that is, the message is still perfectly correct whether ligatures
>are on or off. There are
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 06:28 AM, James Kass wrote:
>
> John H. Jenkins wrote:
>
>> That seems pretty clear to me. If you want a "ct" ligature in your
>> document because you think it "looks cool," then you use some
>> higher-level
>> protocol. The "looks cool" factor simply doesn't apply
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 05:31 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
>> I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages), the
>> use of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ
>> technique for requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to cases
>> where the word i
[I see the encoding in my response got botched -- trying again.]
On 06/29/2002 08:34:44 PM "John H. Jenkins" wrote:
>> OK, now I know the cha of events that he was referrg to, and I'm def
>> itely cled to agree that it was complete cocidence. It is trivial,
>> fact, to disprove the hypo
- Original Message -
From: "Stefan Persson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: (long) Re: Chromatic font research
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To
John H. Jenkins wrote:
> That seems pretty clear to me. If you want a "ct" ligature in your
> document because you think it "looks cool," then you use some higher-level
> protocol. The "looks cool" factor simply doesn't apply unless you know
> what font you're dealing with, because "ct" "looks
At 19:27 -0600 2002-06-29, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages),
>the use of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ
>technique for requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to
>cases where the word is spelled incorrectl
On 06/29/2002 08:34:44 PM "John H. Jenkins" wrote:
>> OK, now I know the cha$B?(B of events that he was referr$B?(Bg to, and I'm
>def$B?(B
>> itely $B?(Bcl$B?(Bed to agree that it was complete co$B?(Bcidence. It is
>trivial, $B?(B
>> fact, to disprove the hypothesis that the "expe
On Sunday, June 30, 2002, at 05:31 AM, James Kass wrote:
> Can you please point me to a URL for Unicode 3.2 ligature control?
> This link (March 2002):
> http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr28/
> ...glosses over Latin ligatures suggesting that mark-up should be
> used in some cases and ZWJ
John H. Jenkins wrote,
> I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages), the use
> of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ technique for
> requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to cases where the word is
> spelled incorrectly if *not* ligated (an
On Saturday, June 29, 2002, at 03:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2002 11:34:35 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>
>> OK, here are the details...
>
> OK, now I know the cha of events that he was referrg to, and I'm def
> itely cled to agree that it was complete cocidence. It is trivial
Hmm. Disregard the last message from me. It isn't "ct" you're replacing.
See how annoying this all is? :-)
==
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
On Saturday, June 29, 2002, at 06:41 AM, James Kass wrote:
>
> This is a display issue rather than an encoding one. Unicode already
> provides for the correct encoding of the "ct" ligature with the
> ZWJ "character". Anyone wishing to correctly display the "ct"
> ligature might need to use a "
On 06/29/2002 04:47:17 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>This use of two routes to the same glyph in an OpenType font, one newer
>method together with one older method, seems to me to be a development,
>which James Kass thought of,
I can assure you, the idea did not originate with James Kass, and
On 06/28/2002 11:34:35 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
> OK, here are the details...
OK, now I know the cha$B?(B of events that he was referr$B?(Bg to, and I'm
def$B?(B
itely $B?(Bcl$B?(Bed to agree that it was a complete co$B?(Bcidence. It is
trivial, $B?(B
fact, to disprove the hypothes
On 06/28/2002 11:34:35 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
> OK, here are the details...
OK, now I know the cha of events that he was referrg to, and I'm def
itely cled to agree that it was complete cocidence. It is trivial,
fact, to disprove the hypothesis that the "experiment" supposedly proved.
William Overington wrote:
> This post makes the scientific
> situation quite clear
Several others have taken you to task for using English words with your
own private meaning, rather than a generally accepted meaning that can
be shared by all on the list. "Science" is one of those words. Scien
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Overington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: (long) Re: Chromatic font research
>
William Overington
wrote:
> My point in citing The Respectfully Experiment in the recent post is
> that even though the reasons for not including any more ligatures in
> Unicode may have seemed totally reasonable at the time that that
> decision was made, the idea of James Kass that the glyphs f
Doug Ewell wrote,
> ...
> On 2002-05-31, I wrote a response which ended "Respectfully, Doug,"
> except that I used William's code point U+E707 in place of the letters
> "ct." My intent was that everyone on the Unicode list, including
> William, would see "Respefully," thus demonstrating the lac
> OK, here are the details. I'm reluctant to admit having been
>part of this "experiment," since it is now being presented as evidence
>to support the proliferation of private-use ligatures.
Actually, no. What I am seeking to use it as evidence for is the addition
of ligatures such as ct to the
William Overington
wrote:
> For example, a recent experiment, documented
> in the archives of this list as The Respectfully Experiment, shows
> that there is now new evidence about the facts regarding the encoding
> of code points for ligatures...
and responded:
> Also, I don't recall posts f
37 matches
Mail list logo
