Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?

From: Andreas Prilop (
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 11:44:54 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?"

    On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Michael Everson wrote:

    > German was not, in Roman type, normally written with the long s.

    It /could/ and it was also written with "long s" as
    Asmus Freytag already pointed out. Not always, but it could.

    > I really don't have time today to look these up.
    > Fine, Andreas, go to the Wikipedia

    So you expect other people to follow the references
    but you yourself refuse to do the same?

    >> 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.

    When an HTML document is encoded in UTF-8, we can specify only
    by lang=zh-CN or lang=zh-TW
    whether a program should display it in Simplified or
    Traditional Chinese typeface. Mozilla-based browsers do this.
    A better, more logical way is by
       lang=zh-Hans or lang=zh-Hant
    I'm not sure whether the latest Mozilla browsers already
    support this.

    It should likewise be possible to specify by
       lang=fa-**** lang=ur-****
    whether a Persian or Urdu text should be displayed in
    Naskh or Nastaliq style by the browser.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 11:50:23 CST