jimi@h-three.UUCP (jimi) (09/01/89)
In article <761@ecrcvax.UUCP>, diomidis@ecrcvax.UUCP (D. Spinellis) writes: > In article <HOLLAND.89Aug25144558@m2.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) writes: > >Even if the font supports ligatures, are there any software packages > >that will recognize that a ligature should be used? > Ditroff supports ligatures: > miranda6% echo affluent | ditroff | psdit | tail > % Postscript output for the first page; > % (Prologue ommited) > %%Page: 1 1 > 10 s 10 xH 0 xS 1 f > 576 96(af\257uent)N % affluent > % ---- (The fl ligature for Times-Roman) > 1 p > %%Trailer ditroff has a ligature mode that can be turned on and off. When ligature mode (set by an argument to the .li request) is on, ditroff attempts to set ligatures. In the case of Adobe's fonts, however, ditroff can only set the ligatures available in the font. In the preceding example, "affluent" should not contain an "fl" ligature. Rather, it should contain an "ffl" ligature. I've wondered why Abobe's otherwise skilled typeface designers consider the "ff," "ffi," and "ffl" ligatures unnecessary. To see the difference, typeset the following words (with your equivalent of ligature mode on, of course) on a PostScript typesetter and a typesetter that provides a complete f-ligature set, e.g., Compugraphic 8400: official, efficient, affiant, effacing, affective, effective, iffy, affluent, effluvium, effloresce, afflux. Times Roman and equivalents are excellent test fonts. The words set in the font with the complete f-ligature set look much smoother. The f[f-ligature] words look like they have bumps in them, bumps that distract the eyes and call unwelcome attention to word's components. This isn't to praise Compugraphic, in particular, though their fonts are very good, but to pick on Adobe's type designers, whose incomplete f-ligature sets detract from their otherwise fine fonts. I'm curious about why they made this decision. -- Jim Ingram uunet!h-three!jimi | jimi%h-three@uunet.uu.net h-three Systems Corporation P.O. Box 12557 RTP NC 27709 919 549 8334
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (09/03/89)
In article <724@h-three.UUCP> jimi@h-three.UUCP (jimi) writes: >In the preceding example, "affluent" should not contain an "fl" >ligature. Rather, it should contain an "ffl" ligature. >I've wondered why Abobe's otherwise skilled typeface designers >consider the "ff," "ffi," and "ffl" ligatures unnecessary. > >This isn't to praise Compugraphic, in particular, though their fonts >are very good, but to pick on Adobe's type designers, whose incomplete >f-ligature sets detract from their otherwise fine fonts. I'm curious >about why they made this decision. In the beginning, Adobe converted other peoples' type to PostScript form. These fonts did not have ffl or ffi ligatures in them (at least that is my understanding), so the PostScript fonts didn't. The original subject of the "any real fonts available?" question was exactly that: are there any Adobe fonts that do have ligatures? The answer is yes; the new Adobe fonts have what is called the "expert character set", which contains lots of goodies like small caps, alternates, old-style numbers, more ligatures, etc. Take a look at Adobe Garamond, for instance. Unfortunately, the discussion quickly degenerated into a discussion of 800 phone numbers and why they can't be accessed outside North America, so it may have gotten lost in the noise. Glenn Reid Adobe Systems
milun@sybil.cs.buffalo.edu (Davin Milun) (09/14/89)
jimi@h-three.UUCP (jimi) writes: > diomidis@ecrcvax.UUCP (D. Spinellis) writes: >> Ditroff supports ligatures: > >> miranda6% echo affluent | ditroff | psdit | tail >> % Postscript output for the first page; >> % (Prologue ommited) >> %%Page: 1 1 >> 10 s 10 xH 0 xS 1 f >> 576 96(af\257uent)N % affluent >> % ---- (The fl ligature for Times-Roman) >> 1 p >> %%Trailer > > In the case of Adobe's fonts, >however, ditroff can only set the ligatures available in the font. > >In the preceding example, "affluent" should not contain an "fl" >ligature. Rather, it should contain an "ffl" ligature. >I've wondered why Abobe's otherwise skilled typeface designers >consider the "ff," "ffi," and "ffl" ligatures unnecessary. On our system, I obtain the following results: echo affluent | ditroff -Tps -D | tail % Much large header/prologue removed 10 R 10 R 120 V 720(a)S 764 H (f)show 10 -.5 mul h (\257)show 10 R 848(uent)S 7920 V EP %%Trailer %%DocumentFonts: Times-Roman %%Pages: 1 This shows that ditroff (which in our case is really a shell-script which adds arguments, calls troff, and pipes results through the required filters) can do better than falling back on Adobe's lack of three character ligatures. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Davin Milun Internet: milun@cs.Buffalo.EDU uucp: ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!milun BITNET: milun@sunybcs.BITNET