Salaam Mohammed, > I didn't mean that. I meant that the tanween > (dammatan) > doesn't look like two dammas next to each other at > all. > so encoding it as damma+damma should return a new > glyph > that looks really different (i.e. the damma glyph > cannot be used > here)
Understood. You are pointing that using fatha+fatha is not intuitive for the typist. We can discuss this further and see if there is a better solution. > As I asked earlier, why this is not done first for > the umlaut > german characters in the Latin range? > The Arabic range has to be consistent with the > Latin ranges > and with the rest of the unicode standard. German umlaut characters are different graphemes. When you put an umlaut on top of "u" it changes both the phonetic and phonemic affect of "u". Also in my native language (Turkish) we use umlaut characters. Sometimes putting the dots above changes the whole meaning of the word. For example "kul" means "servant" (from Arabic) but "k�l" means "ash". But in the case of sequential fathatan, the only difference is at the "phonetic" level, phonemically it is still the same character. Phonemic difference actually may change the meaning of the word, whereas phonetic difference does not have any affect on the meaning, only affects the pronounciation of the same word. There is no phonemic difference between fathatan and sequential fathatan. The only difference is phonetic - it is the same word but it is just pronounced a little differently. Kind regards, Mete _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
