Changes between Version 16 and Version 17 of LatinLigatures

Timestamp:

Jun 9, 2011, 8:19:20 AM (13 years ago)

Author:

Wolfgang Schmidle

Comment:

--

LatinLigatures

@@ +1 @@
+= LAtin Ligatures
+
 Latin ligatures seem to be not as complicated as GreekLigatures. The number is much smaller and the single letters are fairly readable. However, a list of examples should be provided.
 
@@ -17 +19 @@
   * [http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/zogilib?fn=/permanent/archimedes_repository/large/eucli_eleme_515_la_1558/515-01-pageimg&pn=50&ws=1&wx=0.3991&wy=0.8063&ww=0.3251&wh=0.0722&mk=0.4955/0.8492,0.5725/0.8491 qua and quo]
   * [http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/zogilib?fn=/permanent/archimedes_repository/large/eucli_eleme_515_la_1558/515-01-pageimg&pn=50&ws=0.5&wx=0.63&wy=0.4653&ww=0.1434&wh=0.0289&mk=0.7082/0.4908 que (at the end of a word, meaning 'and')]
+
+== Latin Ligatures and Unicode
+
+I think the character in question should receive an official codepoint. Better still, qꝫ and q́ꝫ should have separate codepoints. I am aware that this is against the official policy of no longer accepting ligatures. My argument would be that qꝫ and q́ꝫ are part of a limited list of characters contained in early letter cases. Yes, I choose to ignore problems of upright versus italics, "qꝫ" versus "q;", or what this would mean for the long and massively font-specific list of ligatures and abbreviations in early Greek letter cases. Still, it would be nice.