Re: Proposal for the Basis of a Codepoint Extension toUnicodefortheEncoding of the Quranic Manuscripts

["Mete Kural" <metek at touchtonecorp dot com>]

>TANWEEN                         =                 <vowel><small noon>
>=      conventional tanween
>TAMWEEM                         =                <vowel><small meem>
>IDGHAM                              =                <vowel><idgham code>
>
>Note that this is different - and better - than Meor's and my earlier
>suggestion to retain full tanween followed by a modulation mark.

It still seems to me that the tanween needs to be kept intact whether there is idgham or not since the idgham is determined by the next word. Two instances of the same exact indefinite noun may or may not employ idgham based on what word follows it. If we don't keep the tanween intact, then for instance it won't be possible to search for the indefinite form of a noun and get consistent search results unless both the with idgham and without idgham forms of the words are searched. But if the tanween is kept intact then it should be possible to simply substring search for the regular no idgham form of the word and get both with idgham and without idgham instances.

It seems to me that it should be possible to use:

064B fathatan + idgham modifier codepoint to yield = sequential fathatan

..and so forth..

What do you think?

Kind regards,
Mete

--
Mete Kural
Touchtone Corporation
714-755-2810
--