From: Roozbeh Pournader (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 06 2009 - 09:40:44 CDT
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
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