Re: Urdu Unicode website [Was: Novice question]

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 10:04:00 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Urdu Unicode website [Was: Novice question]"

    I forgot this excellent KACST font suite too, that seems to work now as a good
    Pan-Arabic font, for use with Arabic, Urda, and Qag:
    Many styles available, great for Quran texts...

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Peter Kirk" <>
    To: "Antoine Leca" <>
    Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <>
    Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:19 PM
    Subject: Re: Urdu Unicode website [Was: Novice question]

    > On 25/03/2004 03:33, Antoine Leca wrote:
    > > ...
    > >
    > >As Peter correctly noted from day 1, all this stuff is not very important,
    > >since Urdu users really expect nastaleeq style, so either they are not using
    > >Urdu support, or they use proprietary solutions which extent remains to be
    > >explained by competent persons.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > There are Unicode Nastaliq fonts available, although not from Microsoft.
    > See; both of the links
    > to fonts called nastaliq are currently broken, but one of them can be
    > found at, see also
    > These
    > are supposed to work with Windows, presumably with Uniscribe, but I
    > don't know how well; there is a sample of in this PDF file. The
    > Microsoft Urdu keyboard presumably produces the required characters.
    > >>(and of course Windows 9x/ME which does not support easily
    > >>multiple layouts,
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >This is news to me.
    > >What it does not support easily are other scripts like Gurmukhi or Bengali,
    > >particularly on input ;-). Neither do the supplementary Arabic characters
    > >needed for Urdu, for instance. For this very reason, one of the first
    > >answers to the original question, made by Edward, correctly pointed out that
    > >testing on 9x or 16-bit boxes would be probably useless.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > I disagree. There is no reason why these scripts cannot be displayed on
    > Windows 9x with IE 5.5 and later, and suitable fonts, installed. See
    > "Display" below.
    > >>and where Tavulesoft Keyman is probably a good solution).
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >Tavultesoft (<URL:>). I do not know the
    > >extent of it. I am not competent this about. Their home page does not seem
    > >to target specifically at the Urdu market, and historically they did not.
    > >So I have no clue about the real extent of this solution to type Urdu into
    > >IE/Gecko/Opera on 9x. I am not even sure it is really helpful (have to see
    > >with WM_UNICHAR support, as you probably know; Peter should be able to tell
    > >us if it works with IE; about Gecko, a quick search on returned
    > >no matches...).
    > >And of course if you have to type it first into Wordpad or Word then
    > >cut-and-paste, well surely Unipad is a better solution then... and
    > >definitively they are not operational.
    > >
    > >
    > >Antoine
    > >
    > >
    > Here there seems to be confusion between two different issues,
    > keyboarding and display. These are entirely separate issues when we
    > consider browsers, except perhaps for search boxes.
    > 1) Keyboarding: Microsoft keyboards for Urdu (and for any other language
    > not supported by code pages) work only on Windows 2000/XP (and perhaps
    > some versions of NT), not on 9x. Tavultesoft Keyman 5/6 Unicode
    > keyboards, including the Urdu Unicode keyboard, work on 2000/XP, and
    > also on 9x with a limited set of applications, including MS Word
    > 97/2000/2002 with the special Wordlink add-in program (but Word 97 does
    > not support RTL scripts). Tavultesoft does not support Urdu or any
    > specific languages (except for Thai and Lao) itself, but provides a
    > repository for keyboards produced by those who are presumed to be
    > experts in the specific languages.
    > 2) Display: In principle scripts like Urdu, whether Naskh or Nastaliq,
    > display correctly on Windows 2000/XP, and also on 9x with the complex
    > script display facilities installed with IE 5.5 and later. This display
    > is supported in other programs, including other browsers, as long as IE
    > is installed. Unicode is no problem for display with IE 5.5 and later
    > even on 9x. In practice there may be some limitations in display of
    > complex scripts, especially Nastaliq, on 9x because of the limitations
    > of earlier versions of Uniscribe. And of course suitable fonts need to
    > be installed, and do not necessarily come with the system.
    > --
    > Peter Kirk
    > (personal)
    > (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 25 2004 - 10:44:20 EST