Den 2011-09-10 23:06, skrev "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wording...@ntlworld.com>:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:19:27 +0200
> Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsso...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Den 2011-09-10 20:58, skrev "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi>:
>>
>>> According to Oxford Style
>>> Manual, one should not use the fi ligature in Turkish, as that
>>> would obscure the distinction between normal i and dotless i ().
>
>> It does not make perfect sense to me. Rather that:
>
> I believe the point is that the glyph of fi U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE
> FI
Which is a character that should not be use for any language. Typographic
ligatures (if any) should be formed automatically by the font (and font
handling system).
> is unsuitable for Turkish because it is normally undotted, or at
> least, the dot is barely visible. (Confusingly, my e-mail client chooses
> a dotted glyph!)
IMO, a glyph (if any) for that compatibility character should look *exactly*
like an "fi" (after automatic ligature formation, if that is done for "fi")
in the font used. So if no ligature for "fi" is formed, the glyph for U+FB01
(if any) should have a dot just like "fi" would have a dot. (I know, this is
not commonly the case at the moment.)
/Kent K
> Richard.
>
>
