Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 10:44:30 CST

  • Next message: Andreas Prilop: "Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?"

    At 17:21 +0100 2005-11-18, Andreas Prilop wrote:

    >The example was about Schiller in Fraktur or Roman ("Antiqua").
    >There is *no* difference in orthography between Fraktur and Antiqua
    >(= normal Latin) in German.

    Long s.

    >Why are normal Latin and Fraktur separate (sub-)scripts in ISO 15924
    >when the argument is different orthographies?

    That *isn't* the argument. Please read the standard. The argument is
    that for bibliographical purposes the distinction between
    Roman/Fraktur/Gaelic is significant enough to wish to tag.

    >There is no orthographic difference between Latf and Latn in German.

    Long s.

    >What are the orthographic differences between Hans and Hant?

    A well-defined set of things that need to be distinguished in a wide
    variety of well-known contexts.

    >I suspect that many Arabs have difficulties reading Persian or Urdu

    Yes, but if books in Arabic are not printed in Nastaliq, then nothing
    needs to be tagged.

    >I consider the difference between Naskh and Nastaliq greater than
    >between Latin and Latin (Fraktur) and perhaps comparable to Hans vs.

    In theory, or in the realm of practical applications, which is what
    ISO 15924 is for?

    Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 10:58:06 CST