Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 11:50:52 CST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Exemplar Characters"

    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 *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 12:00:23 CST