From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jun 18 2005 - 12:14:29 CDT
On 18/06/2005 17:05, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 13:07 +0300 2005-06-18, Ahmad Gharbeia wrote:
>> Yes, all the cases described as justifications for the need for glyph
>> colouring within normal typesetting.
>> This is how subjects like grammar, morphology, orthography, gender
>> endings, plural types, etc. were taught to us as children.
> Books for children learning to read the alphabet which require this
> kind of colour intervention are less than 1% of Arabic typesetting,
> surely. Those books are normally richly illustrated as well. Tools
> exist which can assist in both the illustration and in the specialized
> colour setting of ligatures.
1% of Arabic typesetting is a lot more typesetting than 100% of
typesetting in many of the scripts which Unicode has recently been
encoding. I remember that at least one script was justified for encoding
mainly on the basis of its use in richly illustrated children's books
about the alphabet. If Unicode encodes scripts mainly used in such ways,
it should also allow for occasional use in such ways of scripts which
were originally encoded for other reasons.
Of course such use is not plain text, but Unicode needs to work with
those who standardise markup to ensure that that markup does not
interfere in undesirable ways with plain text issues like cursive
joining and ligature formation.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 17/06/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 19 2005 - 09:54:14 CDT