Re: unicode Digest V5 #149

From: Mete Kural (
Date: Sun Jun 19 2005 - 20:32:06 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Colouring combining Marks (was: unicode Digest V5 #149)"

    Yes I now understand John, taking a
    second thought at it after your email
    that its pretty much in the hands of
    font and software developers to
    implement the colouration feature or
    not and since less than 1% does not
    justify the investment for them so
    they don't do it. I think I
    misunderstood Michael so sorry. I
    think though that considering that
    Unicode is probably 99% of the time
    utilized within rich text
    documents(probably HTML, Word
    and OpenOffice documents
    constitute the vast majority of this
    99%) Unicode Consortium should
    produce more recommendations and
    direction that dwell into issues as
    coloration such as the document that
    Asmus co-authored. Then font and
    software developers can choose to
    either implement it or not. Asmus are
    you gonna get busy on this? :)

    I guess what prompted me to write
    that answer is that I have witnessed
    the less than 1% Arabic typography
    argument when discussing additions
    to the Unicode Arabic block to
    support certain rare Quranic
    orthographic features so I mistakenly
    generalized his response with that
    camp. Sorry Michael.

    Kind regards,

    ---------- Original Message
    From: John Hudson <>
    Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:07:27

    >Mete Kural wrote:
    >> I do not think it is consistent of
    you to marginalize Arabic pedagogical
    books since it is less than 1% of
    Arabic typesetting. Nor I believe it is
    consistent with the above mentioned
    intention of the Unicode standard to
    support "the needs of all types of
    users, whether in business or
    academia, using mainstream or
    minority scripts."
    >I don't think Michael is marginalising
    Arabic pedagogical books at all, and
    certainly not
    >in terms of Unicode encoding. The
    discussion is about colouration of text
    for such books,
    >and as has been clearly stated such
    colouration has nothing to do with
    text encoding per
    >se. So what you quote from the
    Unicode FAQ is irrelevant to the
    >Michael's observation about books
    requiring *this kind of colour
    intervention* being less
    >than 1% of Arabic typesetting --
    quite a lot less than 1%, I would think
    -- makes the very
    >simple point that such a small level of
    demand isn't likely to get much
    attention from the
    >makers of fonts and software,
    especially if supporting it would mean
    a complete overhaul
    >of their existing products. Unicode
    itself is committed to 'the needs of all
    types of
    >users, whether in business or
    academia, using mainstream or
    minority scripts', but font
    >and software developers prioritise
    things based on demand. I've spent
    many weeks building
    >contextual mark positioning lookups
    for Arabic fonts, even though I know
    that the
    >percentage of vocalised text is
    relatively small: I do as much as I can
    to refine the mark
    >positioning in the time available and
    as the budget permits. I know how
    much investment
    >Arabic font development takes --
    and how much piracy there is in the
    market --, and I
    >can't see anyone prioritising
    colouration of bits of ligatures unless it
    was as part of a
    >specific commission, e.g. a font
    made precisely for the kind of books
    to which you refer.
    >It is unrealistic to think that so small
    a demand will pay for the
    development of more
    >than one or two fonts made for
    such purposes.
    >John Hudson
    >Tiro Typeworks
    >Vancouver, BC
    >Currently reading:
    >Truth and tolerance, by Benedict
    XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was
    >An autobiography from the Jesuit
    underground, by William Weston SJ
    >War (revised edition), by Gwynne

    Mete Kural
    Touchtone Corporation

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 19 2005 - 20:31:41 CDT