From: Andries Brouwer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 29 2006 - 13:52:29 CDT
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:44:16AM -0700, John Hudson wrote:
> Andries Brouwer wrote:
>> Now that I look at Uyghur, it seems that U+06BE is no good for
>> Uyghur either, so both Kurdish and Uyghur seem to need a new
>> code point.
> Note that no one has suggested using U+06BE for Kurdish. The Uighur h is an
> entirely different matter, and U+06BE is best for it.
As explained in my previous letter I disagree.
But today I am mostly interested in Kurdish.
> In Kurdish, one would use U+0647 for h, and U+06DE for the ə.
I think you meant U+06D5 (for Kurdish E).
Yes, I see no objections against that.
On the other hand, U+0647 for Kurdish H is impossible
without language tagging, in precisely the same way that
U+0647 is impossible for Uyghur H.
>> Position: Isol Init Med Final
>> Kurdish H: init init med init
>> Uyghur H: init init med med
>> Urdu: isol init init isol
>> If the Urdu behaviour is called U+06be, then that is no good
>> for Kurdish and Uyghur. Not only are the shapes rather different,
>> but the distribution of the two shapes over the four positions
> The reason you see something that looks like a medial form in a final
> position in some Uighur publications is that a medial glyph form of U+0647
> has been used, often with the left connecting stroke filed or cut off
> (we're talking about metal and phototype printing). If you look at Uighur
> manuscripts, the shaping for h is pretty much identical to the Urdu U+06BE,
> and this is reflected in better publications and more recent fonts.
You talk about the shape, and maybe misunderstand me - I talked
about the shaping, the rules that select the glyph
given the contextual position.
Kurdish H has two forms, one is used in medial position, the other
in all other positions.
Uyghur H has two forms, one is used in medial and final position,
the other elsewhere.
Urdu two-eyed h has two forms, one is used in initial and medial
position, the other elsewhere.
Arabic Heh has (at least) four forms.
You see - an answer that talks about metal and phototype printing,
about strokes filed off, doesnt cut it. The question is not a
matter of font, of the precise shape that is used, but a matter
of shaping - what rules are being used to choose the different
glyphs for different positions.
If you agree that I represent the glyph-choosing rules correctly,
then you must conclude that U+06BE is incorrect for Uyghur,
and certainly that U+0647 is totally incorrect for Kurdish.
How is a renderer to know that U+0647 must not be rendered in the
shape of U+06D5?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 29 2006 - 13:54:22 CDT