[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Font naming rears its ugly head again

>I did this in my CMPICA fonts. Only one spare glyph is needed

You can actually do this without using a separate glyph for the number
range if you've got a compound word mark.  In pseudo-PL code:

   (LIGLABEL <hyphen>)
   (/LIG <hyphen> <compwordmark>)

This will ligature:

   <hyphen>                 -> <hyphen>
   <hyphen><hyphen>         -> <hyphen><compwordmark>
   <hyphen><hyphen><hyphen> -> <hyphen><compwordmark><hyphen>

>However, I think that their is a real need to distinguish a
>monospace font for text usage vs. a monospace font for listing
>usage. The following characteristics (roughly speaking) should be
>only in the former:

In an ideal world, these might be separate fonts.  But since the TeX
hackery to switch off ligaturing in verbatim mode is so simple, its
probably easier just to use the correspondence fonts for listings, as
long as they've got distinct glyphs for ', and `.

>Incidentally, an interesting note. I believe only TeX is capable
>of ligatures along the lines of AB == DB

Yes, although at the moment you have to use a non-standard encoding
for it, since the Cork encoding doesn't allow for font-specific
ligatures.  But that's another issue!