On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:53:34 +0200 Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsso...@telia.com> wrote:
> 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.) A font need not support such ligation, but a glyph for U+FB01 must ligate the letters - otherwise it's not U+FB01! In such a case, I do not see the need for the dot. Richard.
