On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:57:43PM -0700, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > Khaled, you are referring to a specific style of writing the Koran. There > are several others, which Unicode should be able to represent.
I’m not sure I follow here, if you think there should be a way to differentiate between two forms of prolongation mark (aka Quranic Madda), something I have never seen but i’m open to learn something new, then a new code point should be encoded, instead of abusing a Hamza (aka the other Madda) that has an incompatible normalization behaviour in Unicode. And you ignored my other point. Regards, Khaled > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Khaled Hosny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:26:15PM -0700, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Khaled Hosny <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Furthermore, <alef,quranic madda> ≠ <alef with madda above> > > > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > Because every Mushaf printed in Egypt (and most of the Arabic world) > > since 1919[1] has a note at the end of Madda description stating that “… > > and this mark should not be used to indicate an omitted Alef after[sic] > > a written Alef, as in آمنوا, that were mistakingly put in many > > Mushafs …”, which to me is a very frank indication that the two marks > > are not the same thing. > > > > Also a vowel mark (which the Quranic Madda is) should not “blend” with > > its base letter, the same way that U+06C7 is not canonically equivalent > > to <U+0648,U+064F> etc. > > > > Regards, > > Khaled > > > > 1. The date of first Mushaf printed by Al-Azhar where most of the > > Quranic annotation marks were formalized and standardized. > > _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
