From: Khaled Hosny (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Dec 21 2007 - 05:43:43 CST
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:54:43AM -0800, John Hudson wrote:
>> Does that mean that you do not think that ADDING "amphib/chairless hamza"
>> is a good idea?
> I suspect, so far as I understand the matter, that it might be a
> 'non-starter', i.e. something that won't appeal to the Unicode Technical
> Committee members, but I could be wrong. I may be missing something in the
> description of the proposed character. How, exactly, does it differ from
I generally agree with your points in previous emails, but I still think
it is necessary to add a new chairless non disjoining hamza, though one
can get the required behaviour with smart font technologies, it will
break existing text where the user is expecting a different behaviour
(thought we might consider it wrong behaviour), and it will be
contradicting with the behaviour assumed by Unicode, or am I missing
some thing here?
It is also noted that the behaviour of hamza not breaking joinable
letters is now restricted to Quranic text (and may be other historical
texts?), so it is safe to consider it a different character. The same
goes with Farsi yeh (U+06CC) Vs. Arabic yeh (U+064A), while both are
exactly the same character with the only difference is that Arabic yeh
has dots in the final/isolated forms, old Arabic texts (and modern
Egyptian) assume the same behaviour as what Unicode calls Farsi yeh.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 21 2007 - 05:46:41 CST