>From: Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 01:11:40 +0430 (IRST) > >... I wish to emphasize that the matter of Heh+Hamza was also discussed >at the ISIRI meeting for approval of the standard, and all of the >experts >agreed or got convinced. The list includes ...
I wonder �how� they were �convinced�? By telling them that hamzeh changes its shape? Or by telling them about the incompatibility of U+06C0? There is NO argument that exists for doing away with the <heh + hamzeh> in the standard, period. I don�t give a hoot about the �experts�. The real �experts� are the Farsi speaking people of the world who continue to use the spelling, and that is sufficient reason for including it in the standard. Even if the spelling was now defunct, and was no longer in use (which is not the case), it should still be properly encoded and standardised in the IT standard for backward compatibility. Unicode encodes many ancient characters (such old English characters for example) which are now defunct, and no longer in use, because when scholars want to publish ancient texts, they sometimes prefer to use the ancient characters rather than their modern equivalents. U+06C0 is not the issue here. It has nothing to do with that. If U+06C0 is not the correct shape to use for that purpose, then we don�t use it. We will recommend to the Unicode consortium the correct shape which can be decomposed or normalised into the correct components that are compatible with Farsi usage. Surely that is not such a difficult thing to do. I don�t see what the problem is here. Suppose that the department of lexicography in Tehran University (if there is one) wanted to scan all major printed text in Iran during the past 100 years in order to create a database of all Farsi words and expressions for the purpose of creating an up-to-date dictionary of Persian language (that is how lexicographers go about their business nowadays), how should they implement the glyph? Suppose that scholars wanted to publish early Farsi text, what spelling should they use? The original one, or their modern equivalents? Well, that decision should be left to the scholars. The IT standard should make it possible for them to make that choice for themselves, not predetermine that decision for them in advance. >I can't understand who Abi was refering to, when she or he writes "Next I >expect we will be told how to combe out hair. [...] They have nothing to >offer to the Persain IT and language discussion." Was he refering to me... I replied to this in my previous posting. >We both use our real and full names, and have done everything >publicly. >But who is "Abi Lover"? You guessed right! Abi Lover is not my real name. I will tell you more about that in a minute. Now to more important matters. >Also, quoting Abi's exact words, she or he is against any standardization: >"There are some people [...] who think that they have a duty to lay down >rules for other people to follow." Unicode Consortium is doing this. ISO >is doing this. W3C is doing this. Many software companies, from Microsoft >to SinaSoft also do this, by creating things that will become de facto >standards. You are not obliged to follow standards, but you will come to >trouble if you don't. Noone will be able to use your software with other >software. That is not true at all. I am not against �any standardisation�. But standardisation is one thing, changing the language or telling people how to spell words is another. Microsoft and Unicode and others make standards, but they don�t change the English language or tell people how to spell. English has many anomalies in spelling, grammar, punctuation and pronunciation. When did Microsoft or Unicode ever tell you how to spell English words? As I had mentioned once before, the purpose of such standards is not to tell people how to write Farsi, but to codify and standardise what people write. If there was a genuine technical difficulty in implementing it, you might have had a point; but there is no technical problem involved in its implementation. Abolishing the <heh + hamzeh> in the IT standard is a dictatorship of ideas. It is imposing your will on others. It is telling people what to do. It has nothing do with standardisation. Lastly, I come to the issue of my name! I can assure you that I don�t have anything to hide from anybody either. Assuming aliases and pen names is standard practice in the in the literary world. There is nothing unusual about that. My decision to adopt an assumed name actually came more by accident than by design. What happened was that at one time I registered on some mailing list using my usual mailing address in Hotmail, and that turned out to be a costly mistake. I did not realise that when you register on mailing lists you leave yourself vulnerable to robots who search the Internet looking for e-mail addresses, and once they pick up your address you have had it. They will start bombarding you with spam. Hotmail has good filtering capability to filter out spam, but some are clever, and can bypass the filters. I got hit by a nasty one, and eventually had to abandon my e-mail account and personal user name with Hotmail, which was in my real name. I was not going to repeat that mistake again, so I invented this e-mail account specifically for use with some mailing lists. Since I have been using it, however, it has turned out to be good fun to be anonymous. I may tell you my real name some day, but I will keep you guessing for now. I am not anybody you know or have heard of. I am just somebody who loves Abi and Abi loves me! I you want to know who I am, you will have to guess who Abi is, and I am not going to tell you just yet! Abi _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _______________________________________________ FarsiWeb mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/farsiweb
