On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Philipp Reichmuth wrote: > The discussion was more on grounds of "look at all the pretty things the > Arabs have got". :-(
Weird, were they involved with Persian typography? Few Persian typographers call those things pretty. They consider ligatures disruptive when one's reading the text, and a few popular Persian fonts don't even include the Lam-Alef ligature, which Unicode calls obligatory (fortunately, OpenType Layout allows such fonts). > Apart from that, Nastaliq and Shekaste typography aren't ligatureless, > but the Naskhi ligatures from the Presentation Forms A block wouldn't > have helped a lot, either. No they aren't, but I call them calligraphy instead of typography. But you're right, I meant Naskh ligatures. Arabic typography uses Naskh ligatures frequently, but only few Persian books do so. roozbeh
