Phillip Reichmuth wrote,
> > The latter approach has the additional advantage that there are never > going to be any questions on how people entered that ct ligature, > because people don't have to enter it manually at all, and that people > will never ever have to remember input sequences like "press ALT, > 5,9,1,4,3, release ALT" which habe a habit of not being supported on > some computer systems such as a large number of Unix flavours... > Ease of entry might not be the best argument here. ZWJ still has to be entered. In HTML notation:  -vs.- c‍t As UTF-8: -vs.- ct The latter has the advantage of being correct, the former has the advantage of displaying correctly on this system. Search and replace is also not a valid point here. Using Outlook Express to find the "ct" string finds neither of the above examples. The use of ZWJ breaks search and replace just like using PUA. I laughed out loud when seeing Doug Ewell's signature in an earlier post because I'm probably the only person whose system actually displayed the desired ligature. Yes, it's a kludge and eventually everyone will be able to handle this kind of thing in the approved fashion. Like ConScript, it is kind of fun, though, and there are some practical short term applications. Best regards, James Kass.
