Re: Which type of mushaf ins Unicode encoding?

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

Abdulhaq Lynch wrote:
>> Is the Unicode consortium wanting to encode all major types of mushaf
>> (egyptian/saudi/South African/maghribii/nigerian etc), or just the
>> cairo/saudi printed one?
>>
>> When we answer this, we'll be one step closer to the 'right' answer
>> in respect to the Unicode aspect of things.

Unicode wants to encode writing systems, not conventions within a writing
system nor graphic variantions for the same abstract units of writing that
deal with a particular document.

In the case of Mushafs, this means that if the same orthographic unit
(grapheme) varies in form between Mushafs, but not in function. E.g. various
instances of regional tamween forms that all boil down to the exact same
thing), propose to encode the abstraction, do not bother them with
calligraphic/typographic idosyncracies. By the same token, do not encode ras
khaa, when it is a sukun (this one slupped through thenet because nobody
knew why it was there). As a first step in digitization we should reduce all
the units of script to their abstract essence and define their various
appearances as regional variations/traditions that can be dealt with by font
technology and text mark-up.

t