Tom, Who are "we"? Will this introduce a new code for hamza? Care to eloborate?
On 3/14/06, Thomas Milo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gregg Reynolds wrote: > >> Thomas Milo wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Tatweel is not a grapheme. I have come to the conclusion, that the > >>> letter shaping mechanism needs a new catagory: amphibuous > >>> (literally "between both", between skeleton and vowel as a > >>> category, as well as placed between two surrounding letters - with > >>> optional and separately encoded tatweel. This idea handles the > >>> problems with hamza U+0621, superscript alef, trailing/superscript > >>> retroflex and possibly even the superscript waw. Think of it, if > >>> you will. > >> It's a lot simpler if you define tatweel as a chameleon instead of a > >> frog. ;) It takes on ink or not depending on the inking of its > >> neighbors, and it can bear stacking characters. Simple and elegant. > > We have now a working amphibious hamza, as well as a Trashideh mechanisme > that deals with callgraphically misplaced tatweels. > > t > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general >
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
