Re: More on Tibetan, or rather: ligatures

[Dave Kemper]

On 1/22/24, Oliver Corff <oliver.corff@email.de> wrote:
> yes, I did have a look at that section of the groff documentation, and I
> must confess that I read the text as non-exhaustive, meaning the five
> specific ligatures are built-in, with the option to increase the
> repertoire of ligatures.

You're right, the wording there isn't as clear as it could be.  The
sentence "Some fonts may include 'ft' and 'ct' ligatures; they are
archaic and GNU 'troff' does not (yet) support them" is misleading in
its specificity.  I submit that "Some fonts may include other
ligatures; GNU 'troff' does not (yet) support them" is both terser and
clearer.

It could even add a clause about how certain languages (such as
Tibetan) rely on these ligatures not just for typographic aesthetics,
as with the English-language ones, but to render the language
correctly.  I'm not sure that communicates any additional information
to the reader, but I know zilch about Tibetan, so you might better be
able to suggest a wording that makes the situation clear.