On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 11:50, Christian Perrier wrote: > Hmmm, diacritics indeed modify another character, right? > Not really. A diacritic like a 'SHADDA' for example, would be displayed on top of a character's glyph. The result would "look" as if it's a different character but it's not. In reality, what the shadda means is the equivalent of repeating the character (e.g. alarabiYYa -- in Arabic, instead of having two Y's you would have a Y and a shadda on top of it). > This means that combining a character and a diacritic would give a > different character. The combination is done by the shaping code and > thus the final character is indeed not present in the original file, > right? > No, the shaping code is not involved in this process. Shaping only concerns itself with what glyph to use to represent a character, depending on its position -- diacritics is out of its scope. > If that is true, this means that the needed characters (the rsult of > the combination of harakat and the original character) should be in > the needed-characters/ar file as well probably as the standalone > harakat. Harakat are those guys U+064B - U+0652 > > Could you complete the "ar" file I originally sent so that it includes > harakat as well as combined characters (if I'm not wrong above) ? > Sure -- but first, I can't seem to figure out what that last character is in that file. Can anyone tell me what it is? (looks very strange LAM+ALEF with 'something' else there..) Regards, Mohammed Elzubeir
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part