🚀 go-pugleaf

amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>Don't get me wrong--I like the ISO 8859 code sets, as far as they
>go.  What I was objecting to was the idea that "archaic" characters
>weren't useful to represent in electronic form.  I admit that I
>may have overreacted; I just have strong opinions about the matter.

Of course, ligatures like [oe] and [ae] are still considered `correct' in
oeuvre, mediaeval, encyclopaedia, Oedipus, Aethelwine, etc., in the UK --
`archaic' is relative.

In other words, I agree with you strongly!

I think also that the distinction between glyph-name (ae-ligature), glyph
and position in collation sequence must be made clear, especially as
collating sequence varies from nationality to nationality.  Once we get so
far advanced that we can conceive of printing a Welsh dictionary, we'd better
be able to sort the entries correctly :-)

Some of the work on fonts from ISO 9541 might be profitable reading here.

And yes, I'd love a standard position for tall-s, yogh, etc., but the ct
ligature should be inserted automatically in the same way that the ff
ligature is made at the moment in electronic systems.

Lee

-- 
Liam R. E. Quin,  lee@sq.com, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, +1 (416) 963-8337