On 2015-02-19, Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> wrote: > Does anyone know why does the UCD define compatibility decompositions > for Arabic initial, medial, and final forms, but doesn't do the same > for Hebrew final letters, like U+05DD HEBREW LETTER FINAL MEM? Or for > that matter, for U+03C2 GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA?
As far as I understand it: In Arabic, the variant of a letter is determined entirely by its position, so there is no compelling need to represent the forms separately (as characters rather than glyphs) save for the existence of legacy standards (and if there is, you can use the ZWJ/ZWNJ hacks). Thus the forms would not have been encoded but for the legacy standards. Whereas in Hebrew, non-final forms appear finally in certain contexts in normal text; and in Greek, while Greek text may have a determinate choice between σ and ς, there are many contexts where the two symbols are distinguished (not least maths). -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
