Quranic Proposal

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

Hello,

> --- Thomas Milo <t dot milo at chello dot nl> wrote:
> > Dear Mete,
> >
> > I took a quick look and concluded that the document
> > is a bit misguided. I
> > call it so, because Unicode does not encode GLYPHS,
> > it encodes CHARACTERS.
> >

 First of all, I would like to make it clear that we certainly don't
 want new glyphs for existing characters but we need to add
 some _new_ characters, if you think that one or more of the
 proposed characters are merely different glyphs for existing
 characters please note it so I can explain.
 BTW: although the subject of the email and the title of the proposal
 has the word "glyphs", it is not really about glyphs, it's about
 characters. (Nadim, could you please update the PDF to read "Quranic
 Characters Proposal" instead?)
 Let's please discuss it to make the unicode standard suitable
 for encoding the Qur'an.

 With the current situation, it is impossible propely encode the
 Qur'an with unicode thus it cannot be used at all to encode
 the Qur'an and any attemp to do so will surely get rejected
 by any Qur'an certification organization.

> > As you may have observed on the Unicode mailing
> > list, I just tabled this
> > subject. In observed, among others, that what this
> > proposal calls
> > "sequential fathatan" etc. can just as well be
> > called "repeated fatha" etc.,
> > after all, we have already a repeated dhamma. In
> > that case no new CHARACTERS
> > are needed. the GLYPH for "repeated fatha" etc. can
> > be substituted by font
> > technology. In Egyptian style, you expect two
> > slightly offset fatha's, in
> > Magribi style, they are typically sequential, i.e.,
> > next to each other.
> >

 I'm with you that we can use "repeated fatha" for _either_ the regular
 fatahatan _or_ the glyph of the proposed sequential fathatan glyph but
 not _both_.
 That's our point, the Qur'an needs _both_ of them not only the sequencial
 fathatan, not only the regular fathatan but _both_ of them and in many
 instances the two characters may coexist in the same verse.
 In the Othmani script (used by the Qur'an) the two characters have
 _different_ pronouncations not only different glyphs.
  For example:
   Regular Fathatan ---> this character means that the tanween must be
                                 pronounced clearly "Izhar rule"

   Sequential Fathatan ---> this character means that the tanween must be
                                    either applied with the next character to
                                    form a diphthong "Idgham rule" OR not
                                    pronounced at all "Ikhfa'a rule" depending
                                    on whether a shadda exists on the next
                                    char or not.

 With that being explained, I cannot stress more on the need for _two_
 characters for properly encode the Qur'an.

> > There is no need to include ligatures including
> > trailing alifs etc.

 You mean the proposed character "Superscript Alef standalone"?
 Then please explain how can the sample provided be encoded.
 Please note that for the given sample the small alef is not just
 a "haraka" on the Reh, it's not a haraka at all and it have its own
 spacing between the Reh and the Teh.
 The proposed character along with U+0670 (which is not a haraka) is
 the same case as U+06E6 and U+06E7, you cannot have only one of
 them but _both_ of them are needed.

 If you need more samples for the use of U+0670 and the proposed character,
 please tell me.

> > , because 
> > the Unicode standard is not a glyph list. The block
> > of Presentation Forms
> > should be ignored, it was a mistake.
> >
> > Moreover, the proposal overlooks the problem with
> > the zero consonant that we
> > were pursuing last year.
> >
> > More follows,
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > t

 Sorry, but I didn't understand anything from this quote, could you please
 explain?

 Please help us solve these issues with Unicode for people to stop using
 non-standard encodings to encode the Qur'an (ALL of the Qur'an applications
 available do that, there isn't a single application that uses unicode for
 the Qur'an for the above missing characters).

 If you think that the proposal is misguided, please note the parts which you
 think is so I can explain why it's a character not a glyph and why we need
 it and even give you a lot of samples from the Qur'an where unicode fails
 miserably to encode.

 Thanks for your time,,

-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt