Comment 6 for bug 632267

Vincent: thank you for the comprehensive write-up. I've notched it back from being milestoned, as it's not as clear-cut.

If we were to address the question of whether we are /likely/ to encounter a document relying on the U+F001/U+F002 encodings for fi and fi then this document would need to pre-date the Unicode assignment (note: the Ubuntu distribution does contain documentation at least this old...); however the is a standardised Unicode assignment /now/ and we should be using that and ensuring that others do too.

We have already seen (bug #615565, Romanian comma/cedilla accents) that Adobe's glyph list is not infallible. Within Linux/Ubuntu there is a tendancy towards tackling root-causes of issues, rather than carrying unused baggage as workarounds into the future.

The /correct/ method of fixing the lack of codepoint deficiency was to get Unicode to assign proper codepoints for the fi/fl ligatures, and this was accomplished in Unicode Version 1.1.0, *in 1993*. I think my personal take would be that where Unicode mappings exist, they trump /everything/ else, as we should follow the international standard (which are there for exactly that purpose).

If we did indeed encounter a document that was using codepoints U+F001 or U+F002, how would we know that the document was expecting fi/fl, rather than a specialised logo? The answer is that we wouldn't... in which case there is no reason to support an ambiguity where one should not exist.

We have the possibility here for a modern font, laid out technically beautifully: at the meta-data level, as well as the visual level. Without Unicode we would be in a big mess; Unicode is our friend and our guide here.