Re: Berber and Maghribi letters

From: Roozbeh Pournader (
Date: Wed May 06 2009 - 09:40:44 CDT

  • Next message: Andreas Prilop: "Re: Rendering of Candrabindhu & Visarga Dual Combination in Indic Scripts"

    On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 17:57 +0200, Titus Nemeth wrote:

    I am no expert in Maghribi calligraphy, but couldn't this be a
    stand-alone Hamza (U+0621 ARABIC LETTER HAMZA)?

    > > Another commonly-cited case is the case of U+0643 ARABIC LETTER KAF vs U
    > > +06A9 ARABIC LETTER KEHEH. In some languages, the glyph shapes used in
    > > Unicode charts are both considered OK, while there is usually a
    > > preference for one of the forms over the other.
    > >
    > Haven't they different semantic values in Persian and Ottoman Turkish?

    In Persian U+0643 and U+06A9 are considered to be just variants of each
    other. U+06A9 is the preferred form.

    I believe it's the same in Ottoman Turkish, but I don't really have good
    sources at hand.

    IIRC, the difference in semantics between U+0643 and U+06A9 comes from

    > > But generally, fonts and keyboards are usually the barrier for adoption
    > > of Unicode characters. Until there is an easy way to enter and display a
    > > certain character, users tend to avoid it.
    > That's exactly the point, so I wouldn't be so sure about the use of
    > these Unicode values. I reckon, if anybody would want the regionally
    > preferred shapes, he would "hack" his font, rather than bothering about
    > Unicode.

    Depends on how you could influence your user base to have a font
    installed. More Arabic fonts are adding support for these, and some are
    available freely. For example, see the two comprehensive Arabic script
    fonts from SIL:

    Since yours is a specialized application, I would recommend using the
    correct Unicode codepoint and asking your users to install a font that
    supports them, like one of the SIL fonts.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 06 2009 - 09:45:04 CDT