>From: Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 03:07:21 +0430 (IRST)
>
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > [...] Mr. Pournader had mentioned that he would summarize the discussion
> > points,
>
>Unfortunately I can't do that, since the discussions did not converge.
I am not sure what Roozbeh means by saying that the discussion did not
converge. I think that I can converge it very conveniently as follows:
This discussion commenced when I queried why the glyph U+06C0 was rejected
from the Persian IT standard. Two general objections were raised to its use:
The first was that hamzeh changes its shape in Farsi composition; and the
second was that U+06C0, as encoded in the Unicode standard, does not
decompose correctly into its Farsi equivalents of <heh + hamzeh above>.
As regards the first objection, there are two points here: (1) Whether
hamzeh changes its shape, and (2) whether that has any bearing on the
discussion. I think that I have successfully argued that (1) hamzeh does not
change its shape, and (2) that even if it did, that is irrelevant to the
discussion. Hamzeh is just a shape. I has no intrinsic value or significance
of its own. It assumes whatever significance we choose to give it by
convention. Whether it changes its shape or not, that is irrelevant to the
discussion of implementing <heh + hamzeh> in the IT standard.
As regards the second objection, that U+06C0 is not compatible with Farsi
usage, that is a valid argument for not using this particular character in
the Farsi standard, therefore it should not be used. That argument is
settled. The question therefore is not whether we should use U+06C0 in the
Farsi standard or not, but whether it is desirable to have an independent
glyph in the Unicode standard with a unique code point value (call it
U+XXXX) which DOES correctly decompose into its Farsi equivalents of <heh +
hamzeh above>.
I believe that the answer to this question is a definitive yes, for exactly
the same reasons that is desirable to have <alef + hamzeh above>, or <vav +
hamzeh above> encoded as independent glyphs. Why is it that these shapes are
encoded in Unicode as independent glyphs with unique code point values? Why
don't they just enter them as two separate characters on the keyboard? There
are at least two good reasons, as I have discussed before: (1) because of
the difficulty of correctly representing them in font systems, and (2)
because they are used so frequently that it is more efficient and economical
to treat them as single characters which can be entered with single
keystrokes rather than two. Exactly the same argument holds true for <heh +
hamzeh above>. This glyph is used in Farsi so frequently (much more
frequently than <alef + hamzeh> or <vav + hamzeh> for example) that it is
desirable that it should be treated as a single character which can be
entered by a single keystroke rather than two; and the same difficulty of
representing them in font systems equally applies to this glyph. It is
therefore equally desirable that it should be recognised in the Unicode
charts as an independent glyph with its own unique code value U+XXXX.
The question therefore boils down to whether it is practical, and
technically feasible, to encode such a glyph in the Unicode charts? I do not
claim to be an expert on the Unicode standard, but as far as my
understanding of the subject goes, there is no problem, therefore it should
be implemented. As far as I know, the committee who drafted the Persian IT
standard have never attempted to have it implemented in the Unicode
standard. The question here is, Why have they not attempted to implement it,
and whether they have any objections to its implementation? If they just
forgot to do it at the time, or if it did not occur to them to do so, it is
not too late to do so now. If they have some other objection to its
implementation, I would like to know what that objection is. The
recommendation in the Persian IT standard that the glyph can be entered by
two keystrokes may be the easiest solution; but it is not it is neither the
most logical, nor the most sensible, nor the most professional solution.
CONCLUSION
----------
I will here briefly summarise the main points of the discussion as follows:
1. It is desirable that the glyph < heh + hamzeh above> should be recognised
in the Unicode standard as a single shape with a unique code point value so
that it can treated as a single character both in fonts as well as on the
Farsi keyboard.
2. The Unicode glyph U+06C0 is not suitable for that purpose because its
decomposition in the Unicode standard is not compatible with Farsi usage,
therefore it cannot be used.
3. It is therefore desirable that the implementation of a unique glyph in
the Unicode charts which does decompose correctly into its Farsi equivalents
of <heh + hamzeh above> be recommended to the Unicode consortium by the
drafters of the Persian IT standard.
4. There does not appear to be any practical or technical difficulty in the
way of its implementation, therefore it should be recommended to the Unicode
consortium.
5. Do the committee who formulated the Persian IT standard have any
objections to the implementation of this glyph in the Unicode standard? If
so, what is their objection?
6. If they have no objection, do they intend to recommend it to the Unicode
consortium?
I would like to obtain an official reply from the committee who drafted the
IT standard to these questions.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
_______________________________________________
FarsiWeb mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/farsiweb
