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

["Thomas Milo" <t dot milo at chello dot nl>]

Abdulhaq Lynch wrote:
> I bring it up (and I stress, not in reaction to anyone or anything
> particular in this list) because of how awful the orientalist version
> of arabic grammar is, and I don't want anything similar to happen
> here. 

What do you think of AFL Beeston's approach?
 
> The scriptural representation of the quran that we have now is a
> direct representation of the rules of tajweed and these signs are
> there as an aid to the reader to perform idghaam, iqlaab, ikhfaa,
> madd, waqf etc. If we encode theses things as a small meem or a
> phototastic quadrilateral lingo squirly then we've missed the whole
> point and are putting a millstone around the neck of those who have
> to use it. 

Encodings are abstractions that no user needs to be aware of. 

BTW, what is phototastic quadrilateral lingo?

t