From: arno (arno@zedat.fu-berlin.de)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2008 - 00:04:50 CST
John Hudson wrote:
> arno wrote:
>
>> I did NOT suggest to add an extra char, I asked for changing the
>> defined joining behaviour of an existing char, if that can be done!
>
> My concern with this approach is that it will break pretty much all
> current Arabic fonts. In instances in which the chairless hamza becomes
> 'transparent', i.e. when the letters on either side of it join, there
> needs to be an appropriate glyph substitution and positioning rules
> applied. Since most Arabic fonts currently treat the U+0621 as dividing,
> they will be unable to handle such situations if the character suddenly
> is given new properties. This is a particularly nasty situation for both
> font developers and users, since different software will implement the
> change at in different development cycles, users will adopt the new
> software at varying rates, there will be continued demand for fonts that
> work the old way, etc. A real mess.
>
> So if the issue is not to be addressed solely at the display level --
> with perhaps an explanatory note added to the text of the Unicode
> Standard --, Khaled's suggestion is the cleanest way to implement a
> character-level solution.
Dear John,
now everything is clear to me.
Your suggestions are not based on rules of the Arabic script as you
claimed before the holidays, they are not based on the rules of any kind
of Arabic, but on misspellings you googled and no behaviour of "your"
own creations, on existing fonts.
And it seems that your do not understand what Khaled and I write about
the writing rules of Arabic:
a chairless hamza after a dual joining Arabic letter followed by a
joining Arabic letter is ALWAYS either transparent (between lam and
alef) or inserts a tatweel like connection between the two letters
ALWAYS = in MSA it is a typo, that's why your fonts do not behave
properly, because the designers do not envision the case (whenever
somebody write it on the machine, she immediately corrects it);
it only occurs in some Qur'ânic orthographies; and there again it is
consistent. The rules that I gave you are ALWAYS true: you do not have
do know more than that the text is Arabic.
As far as Arabic is concerned -- and this is of course an important
qualification -- all your arguments against modifying the official
joining behaviour of chairless hamza are baseless.
regards,
Arno
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 05 2008 - 00:08:39 CST