Re: Unicode Quranic Glyphs Proposal

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

On Tuesday 30 March 2004 02:35, Munzir Taha wrote:
>
> >> - For Glyph 8, certainly the isolated/initial form for Lam Alef
>
> It could be isolated, initial or medial, do we need to submit a requirement
> for three ligatures, e.g. In Al-Baqarah verse 8 الآخر is medial where as
> your example is initial
> And since it's a ligature, I suggest the names
> ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WITH ALEF WITH HAMZA ABOVE FLOATING ISOLATED FORM
> ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WITH ALEF WITH HAMZA ABOVE FLOATING INITIAL FORM
> ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WITH ALEF WITH HAMZA ABOVE FLOATING MEDIAL FORM
>

  so, what's the difference between all of those, I really tend to say that
  they are the same glyph.

> but we need to discuss whether it's better to say FLOATING, IN BETWEEN, IN
> THE MIDDLE as alternatives.
>

  I think floating is more descriptive.

> >>   with floating hamza is required (it's pronounced like Lam Alef
> >>  with Madda above but tends to be shorter in pronouncation).
>
> not necessarily shorter but it's out of topic.
>

  hmm, I'm interested to know the place where it exists but is not short,
  please send me privately some samples.

>
> It's already there:
> 0305 COMBINING OVERLINE (=overscore) (connects on left and right) (it's
> used in Japanese) (used to be called non-spacing overscore)

  Does it really behave like the sajda line? (i.e. following the behaviors I
  explained)

> In Unicode 4.0
> 0652	ARABIC SUKUN
> 	* marks absence of a vowel after the base consonant
> 	* used in some Korans to mark a long vowel as ignored
> Q: The first item is correct but the second seems to be an errata, isn't
> it?
>
> In Unicode 4.0
> 06E1	ARABIC SMALL HIGH DOTLESS HEAD OF KHAH
> 	= Arabic jazm
> 	* used in some Korans (Qur'ans) to mark absence of a vowel
> Q: I used to think this is a font issue and should not be a separate
> character in Unicode. 0652 and 06E1 are just two ways of representing the
> same character, and we shouldn't use both in the same text, wrong?
>
  
  I agree with you here, but there are some justification for this
  redundanct. Let's say you need to make a document that
  quotes some Qur'anic text, with the current state, you could use the
  regular 0652 for the document and use 06E1 for only the Qur'anic
  text, if they were the same character, we wouldn't be able to do
  that.
  
> Why do we have:
> U+FE76 ARABIC FATHA ISOLATED FORM
> U+FE77 ARABIC FATHA MEDIAL FORM?
> and hence do we need to apply for two codepoints per letter/glyph/ligature
> e.g
> ARABIC SEQUENTIAL FATHATAN ISOLATED FORM
> ARABIC SEQUENTIAL FATHATAN MEDIAL FORM
>

  I'm not sure about those.

> Finally, all these issues are available in HAFS reading. I have no clue at
> all about other readings like WARSH, QUALOON, ... Can any one points
> whether other issues need to be resolved?

  I have a warsh mus7af, the glyphs are the same but with different looks,
  so we need another font file for it