On Saturday 25 June 2005 12:42, Thomas Milo wrote: > Unicode wants to encode writing systems, not conventions within a writing > system nor graphic variantions for the same abstract units of writing that > deal with a particular document. > > In the case of Mushafs, this means that if the same orthographic unit > (grapheme) varies in form between Mushafs, but not in function. E.g. > various instances of regional tamween forms that all boil down to the exact > same thing), propose to encode the abstraction, do not bother them with > calligraphic/typographic idosyncracies. By the same token, do not encode > ras khaa, when it is a sukun (this one slupped through thenet because > nobody knew why it was there). As a first step in digitization we should > reduce all the units of script to their abstract essence and define their > various appearances as regional variations/traditions that can be dealt > with by font technology and text mark-up. >
Makes sense. What do you think of my example of the pakistani tanween with small meem, indicating tanween + iqlaab, which from the grapheme point of view is in addition to and offset from the tanween? (http://kprayertime.sourceforge.net/calligraphy/tanween-dammataan-iqlaab.png) Doesn't this indicate that iqlaab should be encoded as such, and not incorporated into the tanween? wassalaam abdulhaq
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
