Article View: comp.fonts
Article #628Unicode and ligatures (was Re: font encoding morass)
From: dhosek
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:04
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:04
43 lines
2590 bytes
2590 bytes
In article <71384@apple.Apple.COM>, opstad@Apple.COM (David Opstad) writes: > In article <26760@life.ai.mit.edu> bkph@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Berthold K.P. Horn) writes: >>Finally: Let's hope that UNICODE with its 16-bit characters will help >>resolve some of these problems. Although, UNICODE is dead in the >>water if it does not provide access to ligatures. For there can be >>no fine typesetting without ligatures. > As I've said before, Unicode and ligatures are completely orthogonal issues. > I have on my machine right now a Unicode font containing almost 1,000 glyphs, > including scores of ligatures. The ligatures, like the rest of the > typographic richness of this font, are accessed via a well-defined method > that has *nothing* to do with the character encoding (i.e. Unicode). And what is this magic method? If it involves, say, some system call, then you have two problems: First, the system has to be Unicode-knowledgable (in short, the majority of in situ operating environments can't use it) and the line breaking software has to be willing to interface with this system call. In the case of a system like TeX (or any of the systems which use TeX's line breaking mechanism), this is likely not a viable choice. TeX needs to be able to work (internally) with ligatures as physical glyphs. Unicode in this case could be workable as an input scheme, but not as a useful coding scheme for fonts. > Unicode encodes meaning. Ligatures are inappropriate in this context. > Fonts encode appearance. Ligatures, swashes and everything else are very > appropriate in this context. In short then, you are saying that Unicode is not designed for, and cannot be used for doing font encoding? Not that this is ojectionable, but it should be made explicit that Unicode is only a data scheme and not a scheme for fonts (much like, say, ASCII vs. AdobeStandardEncoding). In which case, Unicode is not the answer to this problem and is at best a distraction. -dh Don Hosek dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu Quixote Digital Typography 714-621-1291
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Aug19.120450.1@lucy.claremont.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!bridge2!news.claremont.edu!lucy.claremont.edu!dhosekReferences:
<26760@life.ai.mit.edu> <71384@apple.Apple.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!bridge2!news.claremont.edu!lucy.claremont.edu!dhosek From: dhosek@lucy.claremont.edu Newsgroups: comp.fonts Subject: Unicode and ligatures (was Re: font encoding morass) Message-ID: <1992Aug19.120450.1@lucy.claremont.edu> Date: 19 Aug 92 19:04:50 GMT References: <26760@life.ai.mit.edu> <71384@apple.Apple.COM> Sender: news@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System) Organization: Harvey Mudd College Lines: 43