From: Arno Schmitt (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2008 - 23:35:07 CDT
Andreas Prilop wrote:
AP> Is it okay to write the sequence
AP> U+0640 U+0654
AP> for a "joining hamzah"? Example:
Bad idea -- I agree with John.
This idea occurs naturally because hamza is wrongly defined.
Hamza is a letter that is non-joining when
c) isolated i.e. final after a right-joining letter
-- 'non-joining,' not 'breaking' as some call it:
because there IS a break, its shape is non joining.
Between lam and alef (which form a ligature) it is transparent.
After a dual joining letter
AND before a dual- or right joining letter it sits on a connecting
stroke i.e. forces the first letter to have a longer connecting
stroke to its left.
So the font must know that something like U+0640 is needed
graphically -- without appearing in the code.
As to the *basic* shaping behaviour -- i.e. which of the four shapes
a letter takes -- hamza is ALWAYS transparent.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 26 2008 - 23:38:25 CDT