Salaam Mohammed,
Regarding the logical or nominal order of the characters, it would help if
you could explain a bit clearer why you think the Qur'an should be printed in
modern spelling. I was not aware of this requirement.
I have only seen Mushafs in manuscript and the singular typeset edition
from Cairo, that place the fathatan (Arabic for: "two fatha's") on top of the
letter that governs the other two cases of tanween as well. Below is a striking
example from the famous Suhrawardi Mushaf written in Mamluki style that leave no
doubt that Suhrawardi did not even remotely associate the two fatha's with the
trailing alif:
Wa s-salaam,
Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mete Kural" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General Arabization Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Sequential Fathatan Final Form (Items 9 and 10)
>
> > I agree with you that since sequential fathatan
> > are only used
> > in the Qur'an, the font can assume that the needed
> > character
> > is the one in the image.
> > But my point is that they have to consistent with
> > the regular
> > fathatan.
> > If I typed regular fathatan and then Alef, How can
> > the font
> > decide if I want the form like in the image (where
> > the fathatan
> > is as high as the end of the Alef), or the
> > expected form for
> > regular text (where the fathatan is *just* above
> > the previous
> > character not as high as the end of the Alef).
>
> The phenomenon you are referring to - the variance in
> the absolute positioning of superscript alef - is not
> a graphemic matter, it is a calligraphic matter. The
> typeface used in the King Fuad codex prefers to
> position the superscript alef there whereas in other
> codices the position the superscript alef may be
> slightly different, and in regular everyday Arabic
> text it can be just above the previous character.
> These are calligraphic style issues. Unicode does not
> encode calligraphic data, it encodes character data
> (or graphemic data).
>
> Font designers design different fonts for different
> calligraphic styles. There are fonts for Naskh - and
> there are many variances of Naskh - Nastaliq, Riqaa,
> Kufic, and other calligraphic styles. The difference
> between these calligraphic styles is not recorded at
> the encoding level (i.e. Unicode level). These
> differences are recorded at the font level (i.e. the
> rendering domain). Unicode is not meant for encoding
> calligraphic data.
>
> In order to render Unicode Quran text 'exactly' like
> the popular Quran mushaf that you find in your home
> (King Fuad or the handwritten clone printed by
> QuranComplex) you have to design a font typeface that
> is exactly like it. And this typeface will have
> differences from the typefaces found in the Ottoman,
> Maghribi, or Rushdi Quran mushafs.
>
> Personally for me, it is not crucial to design a
> typeface that is exactly like the King Fuad mushaf.
> The Quran is not dependent on the calligraphic style
> used to write it, it is the content that matters most
> to me. But I also see value in designing a typeface
> that is like the King Fuad Quran since that is what
> people are familiar with.
>
> > But in anyway, I didn't mean to offend you, we are
> > all busy but
> > this issue is extremely important to me and I want
> > my reply to
> > be reasonable that's why they are long, if I write
> > short replies,
> > you will find them incomplete.
>
> I understand. Yes the need to encode the Quran in
> Unicode is also an extremely important issue for me
> too. Insha'Allah we can propose a proper solution to
> this problem together.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mete
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
<<clip_image002.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
