Re: missing chars for Arabic (sequential tanween)

From: arno (
Date: Wed Dec 19 2007 - 23:51:12 CST

  • Next message: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven: "Re: CLDR Usage of Gregorian Calendar Era Terms: BC and AD -- Can we please have "CE" and "BCE" ?"

    John Hudson wrote:
    >>> Qahira1924 uses the sequential tanween signs both for idghâm
    >>> (assimilation) and ikhfa' (partial suppression) -- when there is no
    >>> assimilation and no partial suppression (hiding) Qahira1924 uses the
    >>> normal tanween signs. So it is not that these are glyph variants.
    >> So there is a semantic load to these signs as well; they indicate a
    >> particular grammatical effect (or two).
    > Yes. Arno was kind enough to send me another example. I've mentioned to
    > him the Arabic discussion list that Michael set up (currently quiet but
    > awaiting such activity as this). He has good quality illustrations of
    > this issue, and I think it would be relatively easy to document the
    > contrastive use and a likely case for encoding.

    As there seems to be agreement on the need to encode,
    back to my original question:

    three new code points
    one modifier?

    If it does not matter, if that's the reason nobody reacted to my
    question, please let me know.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 19 2007 - 23:59:58 CST