[NTG-context] Fallback fails for Linux Libertine O to Junicode over private area, debugging?

J. P. Ascher jpa4q at virginia.edu
Fri Jan 7 22:39:20 CET 2022


> in that case you can best use a rather bare font i.e. no features at
> all apart from kerning and use dynamic features grouped
>
> in lmtx there are other tricks too
>
> \noleftligaturing
> \norightligaturing
> \noligaturing
>
> and other conbtrols like
>
> \noleftkerning
> etc

This is very useful.  I'm thinking of writing an environment that
switches: I like keeping the ease of typing normal characters, rather
than getting glyphs directly, because it's easier to proof on screen in
the editor.

>> writing about reproduced in my work and thus now can in the historical
>> item itself.
>
> one aspect is how ligatures are made: some fonts have single shapes,
> others use replacements and kerning of (then) multiple shapes

I think you wrote about this somewhere else and it got me interested in
physical type from my period: it looks like some printers did some of
the same things, sometimes!  You might have a box of pre-composed
ligatures, or not; you might take a knife to some letters to tweak them
for specific uses, or not; you might even shave wrong-sized letters to
fit them in where they don't belong.  Those shaved down letters could
end up back with their siblings, now shifting around during printing, or
they could be tossed.

The pre-composed ligatures might most often be made on matrices struck
with the same punches as for the non-ligatured glyphs, but typefounders
might re-strike matries now and then, so you might end up with slightly
different pre-composed ligatures in different, or even the same, fount
of type.  It's nuts!

Fred Smeijers writes about this a little bit in *Counterpunch*, but
I had already started thinking about it because of ConTeXt.

I wouldn't have known to look if it weren't for the typographical
education you and your colleagues pass around; so, thank you again!



More information about the ntg-context mailing list