From: arno (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 04 2008 - 12:12:57 CST
John Hudson wrote to Khaled, Thomas and me (Arno)
am Freitag, 4. Januar 2008 um 16:43:
John Hudson> ... you are always going to need to rely on the recipient
John Hudson> having an appropriate font to render the text, and Quranic
John Hudson> text is always going to need more complex fonts than modern
John Hudson> Arabic, just as, for example, Biblical Greek and Hebrew
John Hudson> texts need more complex fonts than modern Greek and Hebrew.
John Hudson> So one way or another you either need to specify the font
John Hudson> in markup or instruct the recipient what font to use.
But all Hebrew cantillation marks, not to speak of letters, a properly
defined in Unicode. Chairless hamza is not!
We all agree that chairless hamza is not ALLways non-joining,
but is defined as such in Unicode
Leaving aside practical considerations, this must be remedied! ???
John Hudson> I am also concerned about integrity of text, but coming
John Hudson> at the issue from the other side:
John Hudson> I'm concerned that the same letter not be encoded as
John Hudson> different characters based on its
John Hudson> context, because that undermines the integrity of the
John Hudson> character/glyph model. Tom Milo has
John Hudson> some good examples of interaction of hamza with
John Hudson> prefixes, and I don't think it makes sense
John Hudson> to change the spelling of a word at the character
John Hudson> encoding level to obtain a particular
John Hudson> appearance. So I was responding mainly to Arno's
John Hudson> suggestions re. using different hamza
John Hudson> characters in different contexts.
I did NOT suggest to add an extra char, I asked for changing the defined
joing behaviour of an existing char, if that can be done!
But none of the grand old men of Unicode seems to interested in the subject.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 04 2008 - 12:16:14 CST