Hi Abi,
Just a comment: That HAMZA thing above FARSI HEH, neither has a shape of HAMZAH nor is even called HAMZAH. It is just a YEH, which is specially called YAYE MIANJI (or connector YEH). its shape is adopted from the YEH itself (it is the upper right curve of the YEH). since its shape is some how close to HAMZAH, people use HAMZAH when there is no other option. you just need to look at a Farsi book of first grade in primary school to check this out. They used to have it 20 years ago when I was in first grade and they still have it since I checked this with my Mom which is a primary school teacher. now deciding whether we need to attach a YEH to HEH is another story. shall we also consider to have an attached "th" in Unicode table since they come together many times in English? -sina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abi Lover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 8:25 AM Subject: [farsiweb]Re: FARSI HEH WITH HAMZA > > > >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 _______________________________________________ FarsiWeb mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/farsiweb
