RE: logos, symbols, and ligatures (RE: Encoding Personal Use Ideographs)

Adam Twardoch wrote:
> In German, it is considered correct to only use ligatures within one 
> part of a compound word, but not across the parts. For example, in the 
> same text, you would use the "fl" ligature in the word "fliegen" (to 
> fly) and you would NOT use a ligature in the word "auflegen" 
> (to put on, to lay sth on sth), since it's "auf+legen".

(Considering only pure typographic ligatures, not any kind of
embellishing ligature.)

Then you would either:

a) get an ugly overlap for "auflegen" (why accept that?), or
b) get an ugly extra spacing for "auflegen" (why accept that?), or
c) there is no need for a ligature anyway, so why force one
   (that is visually distinct from not ligating) for "fliegen", or
d) need to use a special f glyph to avoid the overlap (and that
   would technically be a ligature, though actually separating
   the glyphs), which is unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing.

Could you elaborate please.

B.t.w., if a font has a ligature for <a, ZWJ, e> then that should
be blocked by the display system, since æ should be achieved only
by using the dedicated character (as opposed to the fi/fl ligatures).
And long s is a separate character, the glyph for which should not
be produced by a short s.

	/kent k