From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 11:50:52 CST
At 18:20 +0100 2005-11-18, Andreas Prilop wrote:
>"Long s" is U+017F, which exists in both Latf and Latn.
>The Unicode standard shows this letter in normal Latin type,
>not Fraktur. In the past, you would use the "long s" in the
>same way for the normal Latin as for Fraktur.
German was not, in Roman type, normally written with the long s.
> Nastaliq has U+06C1 and U+06C3
>where Naskh has U+0647 and U+0629.
>Could you please answer to this?
I really don't have time today to look these up. (I hate it when
people give only code points.)
> > A well-defined set of things that need to be distinguished in a wide
>> variety of well-known contexts.
> "well-defined set of things"
> "in a wide variety"
> "well-known contexts"
>Words without content.
Fine, Andreas, go to the Wikipedia if you don't know the difference
between Traditional and Simplified Chinese or what their field of use
> > In theory, or in the realm of practical applications, which is what
>> ISO 15924 is for?
>For practical applications; namely to specify the variant of
>the Arabic script for Arabic/Persian/Urdu text.
In what context? You haven't mentioned an instance of use.
>It is currently possible to specify the script variants "Hans"
>and "Hant". It should likewise be possible to specify the
>script variants "Naskh" and "Nastaliq".
Why? The need to distinguish the Hans/Hant and Latn/Latf/Latg has
been demonstrated. You're only telling us that Arabic has variants.
We know that.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 12:00:23 CST