At 03:37 +0430 2002-08-09, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: >By not providing a compatibility decomposition, we are making the proposed >character a healthy and normal characters, just like Arabic letters or >symbols. It won't be a compatibility character like Chinese and Japanese >ones, or other Arabic ligatures, but a new beast encouraged to be used. >Why don't we encode it in the 06xx block then?
Doesn't matter where it's encoded. It is to be considered, if you will pardon the term, as a kind of dingbat, if I understand correctly. >I were not present in the Dublin meeting, neither was that guy, so I don't >know what was exactly discussed. I'm not even against encoding the >character, I just can't understand why Unicode is making a first exception >here, encoding what is a compatibility character in all senses as a normal >character. Because it isn't a "logo", is used officially and obligatorily in government documents in at least two countries, one of which does not normally use the Arabic script, and it isn't reasonable to expect people to type it in, especially because of its usual font representation. Therefore, and also since it will be required in interchange, it seemed best to add it to the standard. One suspects that it will be used rather more than the other word-ligatures encoded already. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
