[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tanween variants and Unicode
- To: General Arabization Discussion <general at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: Tanween variants and Unicode
- From: Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=b9RMS0GOa0U55G6Vj6t0DwbmWBQXxOp1MFmOZzajToB+yTXOSbj6JZE+lLIUxT4l1PCMEdP3VoQoEG4q2STyGzHEgLaoRkYslEx22r2OKq7sC0VV2Fw9aIztiCavhMXBHDBtiMFPuv+B73WVKF9/whlKB2SIP9Uxxu4tWtNq3Ds= ;
--- Mete Kural <metek at touchtonecorp dot com> wrote:
> As far as I understand (referenced individuals, correct me if I'm wrong):
> - Tom and I support the <tanween+modifier> approach.
> - Gregg supports the <vowel+modifier> approach (by vowel, I mean
> fatha/damma/kasra here).
> - Meor is somewhat neutral but he prefers the single codepoint
> for each tanween variant approach since it is easier to implement.
> - Nadim and Mohammed Yousif support the single codepoint for each
> tanween variant approach.
So if you really boil it down there are two approaches here,
a. With a modifier (of some kind)
b. A codepoint for each character
So why not do both - the 'b' option will give you standardized
backwards compatibility as well as functionality on restricted
or non-font based approaches while the 'a' option would result
in a more preferred standardized approach that is font technology
Seems like a plausible win-win situation to me, no ?
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page