>> What version of Libertine did you use to generate this file? >> I have 5.3.0, the most recent one on >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/linuxlibertine/, but some of >> my ligatures look different from (and not nearly as good as) >> the ones in your demo. > > That's the same version I've used. I downloaded the OTF files, > created PFA files using cfftot1, and obtained the character > metrics with t1rawafm and the kernpairs with ot2kpx for > use with afmtodit (see my groff font installation script > http://www.usm.uni-muenchen.de/~hoffmann/roff/mkgrft).
That's really interesting. Specifying the ligatures directly in the source, the results I get look quite different from yours. (See attached PDF, generated with the code at the bottom of this email.) The differences are, I started with TTF files, and used Peter's install script, which uses fontforge and afmtodit. There seems no reason that should produce different results, but it clearly does. (This is also using a slightly older groff, 1.21.) The odd thing is that the first five ligatures -- the ones groff is supposed to be able to recognize when written in plain text -- are the ones that look the same in both their non-ligature and ligature forms, while the others are visibly different. So I wonder if groff itself is somehow thwarting the ligature process -- it seems a particularly interesting coincidence that only the five groff-approved ligatures aren't working correctly. (If I expand my test case to include all the ligatures defined in the Libertine Roman font, it is still only those five that don't behave as expected.) When I have some more time, I'll have to follow your font install process and see if I can replicate your results. .fam L .ps 12 .vs 14 .sp 6 No ligatures: ff fi fl ffi ffl fj ffj ft Th tt .br Ligatures: \[u0066_0066] \[u0066_0069] \[u0066_006C] \[u0066_0066_0069] \[u0066_0066_006C] \[u0066_006A] \[u0066_0066_006A] \[u0066_0074] \[u0054_0068] \[u0074_0074]
mylinlib.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
