At 2024-01-24T19:39:25-0600, Dave Kemper wrote: > On 1/22/24, Oliver Corff <oliver.co...@email.de> wrote: > > yes, I did have a look at that section of the groff documentation, > > and I must confess that I read the text as non-exhaustive, meaning > > the five specific ligatures are built-in, with the option to > > increase the repertoire of ligatures.
An unhappy fact is that James Clark put "generalized ligatures" on the GNU troff TODO list in 1991 (or earlier) and we still don't have 'em. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/troff/TODO?h=1.02#n113 > You're right, the wording there isn't as clear as it could be. The > sentence "Some fonts may include 'ft' and 'ct' ligatures; they are > archaic and GNU 'troff' does not (yet) support them" is misleading in > its specificity. I submit that "Some fonts may include other > ligatures; GNU 'troff' does not (yet) support them" is both terser and > clearer. I'll keep this mind for the the next time I whack on that part of the manual. > It could even add a clause about how certain languages (such as > Tibetan) rely on these ligatures not just for typographic aesthetics, > as with the English-language ones, but to render the language > correctly. I'm not sure that communicates any additional information > to the reader, but I know zilch about Tibetan, so you might better be > able to suggest a wording that makes the situation clear. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
