Hi Jan, hi Hans,
This is the developer of EB Garamond. I’m only now and then reading this
list so I only learnt about your troubles now.
The way the ligatures are composed simplifies the creation of more
ligatures after the same scheme while not blowing up the font by having
to create one glyph per ligature combination but only one per component.
In fact, it’s not just kerning, like Hans said, but one-by-one glyph
substitutions. It might be seen as inconsistency that one feature can be
executed in different ways. I know of that problem but it’s not that
inconsistent at user level if you use the methods intended by unicode
and opentype to deal with breaking up ligatures. The symbol ZWNJ (zero
width non joiner) is exactly meant to do this so if you insert it, you
should get what you want. What’s more, by inserting ZWNJ you should also
be able to benefit from kerning between the non ligated f and the
following letter or from contextual alternate forms that fit better than
the long bowed f, if you want that. With EB Garamond, this should be
true for both, engines that handle ZWNJ correctly or not.
By the way, the newly standardized German keyboard layout even has the
ZWNJ on it and the norm recommends its use to prevent ligation.
Best regards
Georg Duffner
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:
>>>
>>> \replaceword[sellig][auflösen][auf{-}{}{\zwnj}lösen]
>>
>> I am confused as the specimen of EB Garamond mentions (real) ligatures.
>> They are listed as glyphs.
>>
>> https://github.com/georgd/EB-Garamond/blob/master/specimen/Specimen.pdf
>
> 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
composed ones?
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?
juh
--
EB Garamond: http://www.georgduffner.at/ebgaramond
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
