On 8/12/2011 3:19 PM, Lorna Priest wrote:
Our original proposal had these unified, but for various reasons we
were asked to disunify them.
Lorna
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: on proposed new Arab script characters for African lanugages
(n3882)
From: mmarx <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 8/12/2011 11:21 AM
I want to warn against an aspect of n3883
by Lorna A. Priest, Martin Hosken (SIL International)
I think it is wrong to encode both "Guinean damma
with dot" (as shown on p. 12) and "Arabic damma
with dot" (p. 13).
All of these damma signs are Arabic and if need be
I could produce pictures from many more editions
of the Qur'an displaying the angular damma shape.
There is no question of them being Arabic (script). The "Guinean
damma with dot" is encoded as:
U+08FD ARABIC RIGHT ARROWHEAD ABOVE WITH DOT
----
If this is not the proper forum -- or not the
proper form -- please re-direct me to get this
discussed by the proper people.
Importantly, however, the issue is moot at this point. These decisions were
taken some time ago, and the technical ballots have passed.
People who have feedback on issues like this need to get involved
earlier on, when proposals are first made, and for sure when
approvals first start appearing in the Pipeline Table:
http://www.unicode.org/alloc/Pipeline.html
If a proposed character (or script or collection of symbols) is marked
in yellow or green in that table, there is still a chance to provide
feedback
and potentially influence an encoding decision. But once a proposed
character reaches ISO Stage 6 in that table (signaled by the
table entry turning to white), it is too late -- the character in question
has passed its ballotting and is part of the standard(s).
At this point, regarding the dammas in question, it is a matter
instead of providing appropriate documentation of equivalence
(or non-equivalence) in use and explaining when one might want
to use one variant or another in text.
--Ken
