From: Andreas Prilop (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 08:16:53 CST
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Michael Everson wrote:
> ISO 15924 isn't an academic exercise. There were
> specific bibliographical reasons for giving codes
> to Latf and Latg. Specifically, a book of
> Schiller's poetry might be published in Fraktur
> orthography or in Roman orthography, or a book by
> Ó Criomhthain might be published in Gaelic
> orthography or in Roman orthography.
> Are Kufi or Nastaliq are distinguished in a similar fashion?
Indeed they are! Persian and Urdu are usually printed in
Nastaliq, which can be compared to print in Fraktur or Gaelic.
Persian and Urdu /may/ be printed in Naskh - especially
when printing in Nastaliq causes problems.
On the other hand, Arabic is never printed in Nastaliq, afaik.
I think it would be useful to be able to specify different
Arabic scripts like "Simplified" and "Traditional" for Chinese.
Follow the links "Further reading" at
to learn more.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 08:21:33 CST