Dear Mohammed, Could you kindly post your updated proposal first?
Thanks, t ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mohammed Yousif" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "General Arabization Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 11:25 PM Subject: Quranic Proposal > Hello, > > > --- Thomas Milo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Mete, > > > > > > I took a quick look and concluded that the document > > > is a bit misguided. I > > > call it so, because Unicode does not encode GLYPHS, > > > it encodes CHARACTERS. > > > > > First of all, I would like to make it clear that we certainly don't > want new glyphs for existing characters but we need to add > some _new_ characters, if you think that one or more of the > proposed characters are merely different glyphs for existing > characters please note it so I can explain. > BTW: although the subject of the email and the title of the proposal > has the word "glyphs", it is not really about glyphs, it's about > characters. (Nadim, could you please update the PDF to read "Quranic > Characters Proposal" instead?) > Let's please discuss it to make the unicode standard suitable > for encoding the Qur'an. > > With the current situation, it is impossible propely encode the > Qur'an with unicode thus it cannot be used at all to encode > the Qur'an and any attemp to do so will surely get rejected > by any Qur'an certification organization. > > > > As you may have observed on the Unicode mailing > > > list, I just tabled this > > > subject. In observed, among others, that what this > > > proposal calls > > > "sequential fathatan" etc. can just as well be > > > called "repeated fatha" etc., > > > after all, we have already a repeated dhamma. In > > > that case no new CHARACTERS > > > are needed. the GLYPH for "repeated fatha" etc. can > > > be substituted by font > > > technology. In Egyptian style, you expect two > > > slightly offset fatha's, in > > > Magribi style, they are typically sequential, i.e., > > > next to each other. > > > > > I'm with you that we can use "repeated fatha" for _either_ the regular > fatahatan _or_ the glyph of the proposed sequential fathatan glyph but > not _both_. > That's our point, the Qur'an needs _both_ of them not only the sequencial > fathatan, not only the regular fathatan but _both_ of them and in many > instances the two characters may coexist in the same verse. > In the Othmani script (used by the Qur'an) the two characters have > _different_ pronouncations not only different glyphs. > For example: > Regular Fathatan ---> this character means that the tanween must be > pronounced clearly "Izhar rule" > > Sequential Fathatan ---> this character means that the tanween must be > either applied with the next character to > form a diphthong "Idgham rule" OR not > pronounced at all "Ikhfa'a rule" depending > on whether a shadda exists on the next > char or not. > > With that being explained, I cannot stress more on the need for _two_ > characters for properly encode the Qur'an. > > > > There is no need to include ligatures including > > > trailing alifs etc. > > You mean the proposed character "Superscript Alef standalone"? > Then please explain how can the sample provided be encoded. > Please note that for the given sample the small alef is not just > a "haraka" on the Reh, it's not a haraka at all and it have its own > spacing between the Reh and the Teh. > The proposed character along with U+0670 (which is not a haraka) is > the same case as U+06E6 and U+06E7, you cannot have only one of > them but _both_ of them are needed. > > If you need more samples for the use of U+0670 and the proposed character, > please tell me. > > > > , because > > > the Unicode standard is not a glyph list. The block > > > of Presentation Forms > > > should be ignored, it was a mistake. > > > > > > Moreover, the proposal overlooks the problem with > > > the zero consonant that we > > > were pursuing last year. > > > > > > More follows, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > t > > Sorry, but I didn't understand anything from this quote, could you please > explain? > > Please help us solve these issues with Unicode for people to stop using > non-standard encodings to encode the Qur'an (ALL of the Qur'an applications > available do that, there isn't a single application that uses unicode for > the Qur'an for the above missing characters). > > If you think that the proposal is misguided, please note the parts which you > think is so I can explain why it's a character not a glyph and why we need > it and even give you a lot of samples from the Qur'an where unicode fails > miserably to encode. > > Thanks for your time,, > > -- > Mohammed Yousif > Egypt > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
