Den 2011-09-11 01:23, skrev "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com>:
> 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, True. > but a glyph for U+FB01 must > ligate the letters - And this "ligature" can look just like "fi" in that font. I see no reason whatsoever that it could not. > otherwise it's not U+FB01! Of course it would be. > In such a case, I do > not see the need for the dot. That does not follow. /Kent K > Richard. > >