Junicode-font
Junicode-font copied to clipboard
psb1558
MUFI 00F4E8 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE LONG S L WITH DIAGONAL STROKE
I just noticed that the character, proposed by me some time ago and accepted, is described now (https://mufi.info/q.php?p=mufi/chars/unichar/62696) as "Incorrectly encoded at some point" and "deprecated".
It was and is needed for Polish, at least in principle (I guess nobody used it except myself). Unfortunately it seems my original proposal is no longer on the MUFI site, but I will try to reconstruct it, the examples were from the IMPACT corpus (https://szukajwslownikach.uw.edu.pl/).
I will appreciate if you include it in some way in Junicode; sticking to the original MUFI code point is not necessary.
In https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351121973 I state that the character occur over 8 thousand times in the corpus, but also contribute to the mess calling it just LATIN SMALL LIGATURE LONG S L WITH STROKE. It was encoded then as U+F51E but converted to the long s and l with stroke.
If this is what I think it is, it turned up in the MUFI materials without an illustration, and I didn't know quite what to make of it. But I see now that it was a thing that Junicode already had as a Contextual Alternates (calt) rule substituting combining forms of ſ and ł:
In general it is not necessary to encode ligatures, at least when they're handled by "always-on" features like calt and liga. But of course I will encode it if you can work the matter out with the MUFI folks.
it was a thing that Junicode already had as a Contextual Alternates (calt) rule substituting combining forms of ſ and ł
Had and still has? If so then it's OK for me. Please remind me how to use it in practice in TeX.
It should be there if you have the latest release. ſ and ł should ligature whenever they occur together, but if it doesn't work, just turn on calt when you load the font with fontspec:
\setmainfont{Junicode}[Alternates=Contextual]
Or if you're using the new junicode package in CTAN:
\usepackage[MainFeatures={Alternates=Contextual}]{junicode}
But I think these should be unnecessary.
Are you on the mufi-fonts list? Tarrin Jon Wills just wrote
It's at F4F8 (cf. AndronScriptor), not F4E8. I've left the latter also in the database for clarification in case there are references to the incorrect codepoint. But please let me know if I have misunderstood something and it should in fact be at F4E8 (and Andreas's mistake?).
What is you opinion?
Well all the other U+F4FN characters are ligatures, so I suppose U+F4F8 is as good a place as any. I will add it. But I strongly discourage the use of PUA code points for ligatures when OpenType features can do the job in a more convenient and accessible way.
I'm confused :-( In version 2.208 there is neither F4E8 nor F4F8. I don't really need it, I just picked up the character to illustrate the MUFI recommendation and junicode in a presentation. I can of course use another character, but I'm just curious...