> > For instance, the Danish ae (U+00E6) is not designated a ligature,
>
> It was in Unicode 1.0; I think politics were involved in that one.
> In Latin use, ae is most certainly a ligature, and likewise in the
> languages (including English) that have borrowed words involving it.
> In Danish use, though, it is a separate letter.
Typographically, it's a ligature either way. And yes, this is a letter
in Danish.
> > but the
> > Dutch ij (U+0133) is, even though the "a" and "e" are clearly fused
> > together, while the "i" and "j" aren't.
>
> I have certainly seen "ij" glyphs that looked quite fused,
> more like "\xff",
> which is why that letter appears in 8859-1 but its capital equivalent
> does not.
There is no ij ligarure character in 8859-1. For signs (on buildings)
IJ is sometimes "fused".
/kent k
