> Yes, it appears that groff decomposes the "u..." characters,
> recognizes the five as known ligatures, but then outputs the
> individual characters because the font description file doesn't
> contain the corresponding groff names "ff", "Fi", "Fl", etc.,
> even though it contains the composite uni
> 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 someho
>> 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
> > You have to call afmtodit with the "-i" option when
> > generating the description file for the italic fonts
> > (the manual page says that "-i50" was used for the
> > standard fonts).
>
> Thanks for the tip. Peter and I have been discussing how
> best to get install-font.sh to support this.
> And here's the design error: The values in the `ligatures'
> line of a groff metrics file should be *groff entities*,
> not PS glyph names.
They were already called ffi, ffl, etc. before Postscript
was invented, so it unlikely they are PS glyph names but
rather input character sequences for whi
>> It should be fairly straightforward to add new hard-coded ligatures
>> to the groff source, and to afmtodit.
>
> Well, the concept of ligatures in the today's font world is much more
> complex than 30 years ago, so extending hard-coded values is a no-go
> IMHO.
I agree, in principle. My thinki
>> I think this is because afmtodit assumes these ligatures will be
>> called "fi", "fl", "ff", "ffi", and "ffl", but in the new fonts
>> they are called "f_i", "f_l", "f_f", "f_f_i", and "f_f_l".
Yeah, this is a partly a limitation and partly a design problem, see
below.
> I see. It looks like
Thanks, Tadziu, for all the info and the demo file! A few followups
below.
> I think this is because afmtodit assumes these ligatures will be
> called "fi", "fl", "ff", "ffi", and "ffl", but in the new fonts
> they are called "f_i", "f_l", "f_f", "f_f_i", and "f_f_l".
I see. It looks like afmto
> 1. Although the fonts in this family define a number
> of ligatures, groff doesn't use them. This is because
> the font files generated by install-font.sh contain no
> "ligatures" line. I'm not sure whether this is a shortcoming
> in one of the conversion utilities install-font.sh calls,
> or
Thanks are due to Werner Lemberg, for the pointer a couple of years
ago to the Linux Libertine font family, and to Peter Schaffter, whose
install-font.sh script made installing this family in groff a nearly
painless process.
I've played around some with these fonts, and there are a lot of things
I
10 matches
Mail list logo
