Doug Ewell wrote: ... > > My copy of Photoshop 7 has an interesting image in its (HTML format) > > help file, page <1_16_4_13.html> on "Using ligatures and old style > > numerals". It shows three examples of «Type with Ligatures option > > unselected and selected»: "ct", "fi" and "fh". > > > > The bad part of it is that the ligated characters shown (in the > > sencond and third examples) seem to include a long "s" instead of an > > "f"... > <ty_06.gif> attached for reference. > > There is no "fh" ligature in Unicode,
No, but is is perfectly permissible to ligate f and h anyway, just like you can (or should) ligate f and j, and g and j (if the glyphs would overlap). > so Photoshop may have been trying > to substitute the "closest" available ligature to the one you wanted > (which is wrong, of course). > > Substituting an unligated ſi (U+017F + U+0069) for fi (U+0066 > + U+0069) > makes no sense at all. If the current font doesn't contain an fi > ligature (U+FB01), Photoshop should just leave the combination alone. U+FB01 is a compatibility character that is best avoided to use at all. Formation of of an f and i ligature should not depend on if the character U+FB01 is supported or not (though it is likely to be supported if f and i are ligated). /kent k