[NTG-context] Ligatures in EB Garamond
Jan U. Hasecke
juh+ntg-context at mailbox.org
Mon Jan 18 13:46:45 CET 2016
Am 18.01.2016 um 11:09 schrieb Hans Hagen:
> On 1/18/2016 10:16 AM, Jan U. Hasecke wrote:
>> Am 17.01.2016 um 20:05 schrieb Hans Hagen:
>>> On 1/16/2016 3:58 PM, Jan U. Hasecke wrote:
>>>> Am 16.01.2016 um 13:31 schrieb Schmitz Thomas A.:
>>>>> Please provide a minimal example of your problem. It’s impossible to
>>>>> help when we have no clue what you’re doing.
>>>> Sorry, of course.
>>>> After setting up a mwe I found that it is a font related issue.
>>>> When I don't specify a font, it works. --> example.tex
>>>> When I choose EB Garamond, it does not work. -- example-Garamond.tex
>>>> I confirmed this behaviour in my real setup.
>>> don't assume that ligatures are always real ligatures ... in that font
>>> it's just kerning .. this kind of works okay:
>> I am confused as the specimen of EB Garamond mentions (real) ligatures.
>> They are listed as glyphs.
> maybe the archaic st ligature is a precomposed but f f l i aren't done
> that way but by either kerning or replacement of individual glyphs +
> kerning (there are many methods for this) ... also, 'liga' might mean
> ligature but in practice is used for all kind of things ... in opentype
> 'ligature substitution' is just a many-to-one replacement but that
> doesn't mean that 'liga' uses that ... welcome to the inconsistent open
> type mess
Mh, yes. :-(
Two additional questions. Shall I file a bugreport for this issue? What
would be the right words: please provide real ligature glyphs instead of
EB Garamond is a free font also in the sense free of charge. But what
can I expect when I buy a commercial font? I would be quite annoyed when
I buy a font which does not provide the features in a way that I can use
them in ConTeXt.
Is there a font quality page on the Wiki with a feature comparison?
More information about the ntg-context