Re: Proposed new characters updated in Pipeline Table

From: Philippe Verdy <>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:45:30 +0200

2011/8/15 mmarx <>:
> I took Roozbeh's answer for the final word,
> because the unicode world is still full
> of secrets to me. I guess he knows from
> years of experience.
> But I admit that it strikes me as a bit odd
> given the fact that there is both
> and   ARABIC MADDAH ABOVE (U+0653).
> So why shouldn't there be a ARABic/SYRIac Wasla Above?
> But as it is really just one precomposed
> "Alaph Wasla" that has to be encoded instead,
> it does not matter which way the result is achieved.
> ten years ago this has already come up:

And if the same thread in 2001, Michael Everson was interested to see
scanned samples of usage of Wasla in Syriac, in documents submitted by
Miikka-Markus for consideration by both the UTC and the ISO WG2. The
thread does not seem to have any further follow on, despite what
Miika-Markus replied. I don't know if such documents or evidences came
to the UTC and WG2.

So the question of a separate encoding of the Arabic Wasla, or the
encoding of a Syriac Aliph-Wasla remains open. None of these options
have been formally dismissed. But if the separate Wasla is only needed
for the use in Syriac in the sepecific complinatioon with the Syriac
Aliph, it's probably best to encode only the Syriac Aliph-Wasla, as
long as the UTC and/or WG2 collect the evidence of this use and need,
and then further delay the separate encoding of Wasla (unless it is
also needed and used on other Arabic/Syriac letters or in isolation,
something that Miika-Markus also described in his posted message in

Received on Mon Aug 15 2011 - 14:46:57 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Aug 15 2011 - 14:46:57 CDT