> > E.g., it is quite legitimate to render, e.g. LIGATURE FI as
> an f followed
> > by an i, no ligation, whereas that is not allowed for the ae
> > ligature/letter, nor for the oe ligature.
>
> How do you know that? Either "Caesar" or "C�sar" is good Latin.
That's the other way around. Ligating ae into � works for Latin
and sometimes English (could be done via a "smart" font). However,
breaking up the *character* � into separate glyphs for a and e goes
against the reason why this character is at all encoded, and the
*character* � must always be rendered ligated. This is in contrast to
the character for fi ligature, which is there ONLY for compatibility
reasons, and *should* never even be used. Note that e.g. an fj
ligature is just as legitimate and useful as an fi ligature (fjord,
fjol, fj�rde, fj�ll, fjorton, fj�der,...), but since it is of no
orthographic significance, there's no character for fj ligature, and
there should not, strictly speaking, have been one for the fi ligature;
both the fi and fj ligatures (and many more) should be generated
just via the rendering system+font.
/kent k
