[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: Meor Ridzuan Meor Yahaya <meor dot ridzuan at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:05:32 +0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=B6dshtu0xVMf4T8SMKpYl1FCzfTRLW2SKPrddYfa+iYwVglug9l4XjmcXF1yiFaLNwUygrKAkRdW9M7kgUXkk1tieA6ClpU9A481lZJGHJuzr1xYzztYAV4H1h8yxubyuiz3LYd8PawQoIddLQhIqmBdNKzewOtQPdNQnIA6R7Y=
I don't have any strong preference because I'm not the expert here.
However, I do have a good experience on the technology implementation
One thing to consider about your proposal. If you choose the approach
of using a tanween+modifier (as implemented by my text file), I
suggest you to use other than sukun, since this will make many,many
system out there to break. Why? One word: Microsoft. They will treat
the sequence invalid, thus will render the dotted circle (please refer
). Since in their implementation they have the sequence as invalid
build in, this will upset a lot of people. Plus, I think they will
oppose the porposal because of that. That is the reason why I did not
choose sukun for that purpose. However, since 06DF and 06E0 are in the
same group with 06E2 (one of my choosen modifier), it might work, but
I'm not sure what it means to have that sequence.
On 8/30/05, Mete Kural <metek at touchtonecorp dot com> wrote:
> So I think what would be the best is that once this proposal goes into public review, everyone who has a different approach should comment and discuss about the matter on the Unicode platform. This includes Meor, Gregg, you and Mohammed Yousif. The public review website is here:
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Mete Kural" <metek at touchtonecorp dot com>
> Reply-To: General Arabization Discussion <general at arabeyes dot org>
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:31:19 -0700
> >Hello Nadim,
> >From: Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>
> >>Out of curiosity, who is the "we" in the 'we would discourage' above ?
> >I meant Tom and me. But I would not like to speak for Tom although I do know his view regarding this tanween issue and he doesn't support proposing six new codepoints for each tanween and rather supports the <tanween+modifier> pattern. This was proposed by himself not by me and I agreed that it is the appropriate way to handle the matter at hand.
> >>As noted without buy-in from those involved with unicode on this list we
> >>have an extremely limited change to get anything through to the committee.
> >That is why I posted about this on this list in the first place. But it seems like everybody has a different approach to handle the issue and not willing to change their minds except maybe Meor. 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.
> >You and Mohammed Yousif support the single codepoint for each tanween variant approach.
> >Kind regards,
> >Mete Kural
> >Touchtone Corporation
> Mete Kural
> Touchtone Corporation
> General mailing list
> General at arabeyes dot org