--- Mete Kural <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I understand (referenced individuals, correct me if I'm wrong):
>
> - Tom and I support the <tanween+modifier> approach.
> - Gregg supports the <vowel+modifier> approach (by vowel, I mean
> fatha/damma/kasra here).
> - Meor is somewhat neutral but he prefers the single codepoint
> for each tanween variant approach since it is easier to implement.
> - Nadim and Mohammed Yousif support the single codepoint for each
> tanween variant approach.
So if you really boil it down there are two approaches here,
a. With a modifier (of some kind)
b. A codepoint for each character
So why not do both - the 'b' option will give you standardized
backwards compatibility as well as functionality on restricted
or non-font based approaches while the 'a' option would result
in a more preferred standardized approach that is font technology
driven.
Seems like a plausible win-win situation to me, no ?
Salam.
- Nadim
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
