Consider the following MWE:
\documentclass{minimal}
\begin{document}
Which kerning do you prefer?
\bigskip
\emph{well willow wallow wellington} %
\verb+ <--- Version 1, default kerning+
\bigskip
\newcommand{\donothing}{\hspace{0pt}}
\emph{wel\donothing l wil\donothing low wal\donothing low wel\donothing lington} %
\verb+ <--- Version 2, Double-lowercase-L's are different+
\end{document}
On my system (MiKTeX 24.4 + TeXWorks 0.6.9, Windows 11, using LuaLaTeX) the two versions give noticeably different output. The line marked "Version 1" has much wider spacing between the double "Italic lowercase-L" characters, than we see in "Version 2". Here is an image of my output:
And, a second image where we zoom in on the italic part:
Personally I prefer the output in Version 2: it makes the "ill" and "lli" combinations more consistent, plus it just "looks better" to my eye, though I am no expert.
(Adding the \donothing
macro in other places, like between the "w" and the "e", has no effect. It's only between the "adjacent l"s that it affects the output. I can also use the same \donothing
macro to break ligatures in other examples, like \emph{dif\donothing ferent waf\donothing f\donothing les}
, though in that example I would certainly prefer to leave the ligatures intact.)
Questions:
- Is "double-italic-lowercase-L" a ligature? I never see it included in lists of ligatures, and it seems that it is not so easy to check.
- If it is a ligature, does it mean that the default kerning ("Version 1") was an intentional design choice? Is it considered "better" than Version 2?
- If it is not a ligature, why does the
\donothing
macro alter the output?
ll
-ligature -- but only in the italic font shape, and only if the font is loaded with theLigature=Rare
option.