[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Faking ff ligatures
- To: Rebecca and Rowland <rebecca@astrid.u-net.com>
- Subject: Re: Faking ff ligatures
- From: Paul Thompson <paul@wubios.wustl.edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:18:34 -0500 (CDT)
- cc: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>, Fontinst mailing list <fontinst@cogs.susx.ac.uk>
- In-Reply-To: <l03130301b2300359cdc7@[195.102.194.86]>
There is something extremely Carrollian about this whole discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Thompson |Do not go gentle into that good night.
Assoc. Prof., Div Biostatistics|Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Washington Univ. St. Louis |Dylan Thomas
On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Rebecca and Rowland wrote:
> >> \movert{\neg{\scale{\width{f}}{250}}}
> >
> >This _is_ absolutely insane.
>
> Righto.
>
> >Don't mismatch `faking' the ligature ff, which is an impossible task
> >(if it was possible, the whole ligature business would have vanished
> >in occidental typography, don't you believe?), and filling-in the ff
> >slot in O/T1 encodings for (??) compatibility or strict
> >compliance. What fontinst does is rather perverse: use tex's
> >auto-ligaturing mechanism + VPL power to automagically replace the
> >string ff by ... the same string exactly how it would have been printed
> >without the TeX+VF power!
>
> Ah... I see. So in those cases where I have horrible-looking combinations
> of ffl and ffi, I would have got exactly the same appearance without the
> ffl and ffi faked ligatures. The solution seems to me to be this: in those
> cases where a fount ends up with horrible-looking ffl and ffi `ligatures'
> made up of a real fi or fl ligature preceded by an `f', the best fix is to
> replace the `fi' and `fl' ligatures (in ffl and ffi only) with `f' `i' and
> `f' `l'.
>