Salaam Mohammed, Nadim, and Abdulhaq, Mohammed, it looks like we are not reaching each other with this umlaut vs. fathatan discussion. I don't want to go around in circles any more. We have discussed and discussed, we have agreed on somethings, and disagreed on others. If we don't agree, we don't agree. Time is the best medicine :-) In due time we may resolve more differences.
Nadim (and others) so let me specify herein what changes I am suggesting should be done to the Quran Characters Proposal. I'll list item by item. Items 1, 2, and 3: Should be removed from the joint proposal and a seperate Arabeyes.org-only proposal should be created for requesting that codepoints be added to Unicode for sequential fathatan, sequential dammatan, and sequential kasratan. This way what we both agree on will be distinguished from what we don't agree on. Items 4,5, and 6: I am assuming that we have agreed on what we should do about these items. The agreement was that the already existing small meem in the Arabic code block can be used together with damma, fatha and kasra to represent the glyphs in 4, 5, and 6. In this case, we need to change the proposal for 4,5,6 and instead of requesting that new characters be added, we should request that the sequences fatha+small_meem, damma+small_meem, and kasra+small_meem be defined to represent the allographs in items 4,5, and 6 respectively. Item 7: We have already brought this case to the attention of the Unicode group a while ago and suggested that a new allograph be added to the contexual behaviour of U+0621 when it's between two connecting letters. It was met with fierce resistence from the Unicode Farsi computing community and jusifiably so since this would break existing Farsi texts. Therefore the only other alternative we were left with was to propose a new Arabic character "Arabic Chairless Hamza" and declare it "conditionally" equivalent to U+0621. Tom can supply this section since he has already been working on this proposal. Item 8: This item should be removed from the joint proposal and added to the seperate Arabeyes.org-only proposal. Item 9 and 10: These items should be removed from the joint proposal. My recommendation would be not to add these items even to the Arabeyes.org-only proposal because these two items are already covered by Item 1, sequential fathatan. These cases are just contexual instances of the sequential fathatan proposed in Item 1. These should not be seperate codepoints but rather contexual instances of Item 1 which should be documented as part of the Arabeyes.org-only proposal for Item 1. Fonts can easily substitute the necessary glyphs for these cases. Items 11 and 12: These items should be removed from the proposal. Similar to the above, these Items are covered by Item 4, fatha with small meem. These two items are simply contexual instances of the fatha with small meem allograph proposed in joint proposal for Item 4. These should not be seperate codepoints but rather contexual instances of Item 4 which should be documented as part of the joint proposal for Item 4. Fonts can easily substitute the necessary glyphs for these cases. Kind regards, Mete _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
