Why would Unicode need a ligature (as opposed to the font)? Also, it doesn't even render as a ligature in this font!
-
-
Replying to @stevecheckoway
Thanks, you just explained why it's hideous. :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichFelker @stevecheckoway
Legacy encodings included them, and Unicode added them to preserve round-trip encoding. They are very deprecated in favor of font ligation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @FakeUnicode @stevecheckoway
Yes. The most hideous part is that several PDF readers/converters produce them in output or clipboard copies for Adobe "fi" glyph...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Fake “Boonicode.†↙️ Retweeted Oliver Burnett-Hall
Fake “Boonicode.†↙️ added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Hmm, should there be a monospace font that makes a n-char ligature n characters wide?
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Artoria2e5 @FakeUnicode and
Pragmata Pro does this with a bunch of common code punctuation combinations & it is simply divine to work in
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @frameslip @FakeUnicode and
Hmm, I'm referring to these ligature code points already there in Unicode. And then there's the wcwidth problem Rich mentioned…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Artoria2e5 @frameslip and
Hmm, font designers can provide a custom fi ligature that does not occupy the real one's code point though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Indeed, and that's how it should be done - ligatures as (e.g. OT) glyph substitution rules for character sequences, not special codepoints.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker @Artoria2e5 and
I㎃g㏌e if Lat㏌ ligatures ㏊d taken o␌. We'd be aыe to ㏌␍e⅍e word den␏ty of tweeʧ by a ␏gnifi␘t a㏁unt. №w we ㏊ve to le🜇n an ideogra㏗🆋 lang㎂ge.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
