Re: Unicode Quranic Glyphs Proposal

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

--- Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 April 2004 21:59, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
> > Mohammed, didn't we say we'd be happy with a Y-axis position specific
> > glyph ?  Meaning if the OVERLINE glyph was specified so that in the
> > font file it was marked to be slightly higher than whatever the
> > upper-bound of LAM + haraka.1 + haraka.2 is,
> 
>  No, it doesn't do that. It's not expected for it to be used with Arabic
>  diacritics at all.  The current behavior with tashkil is really bad, it's 
>  sometimes lower and sometimes higher than tashkil depending on the height
>  of the arabic letter.
>
>  Another thing is the lam alef with floating hamza thing, it's a ligature
>  like lam alef and we need someway to be able to put harakat on the lam
>  or on the alef and they need to be drawn appropriately.
>
>  I'm thinking of telling Unicode that we want lam with 0675 to produce our
>  proposed ligature (lam alef with floating hamza), that way we can overcome
>  the tashkil problem with the ligature (What tashkil belongs to lam/and what
>  belongs to the alef) so it can be drawn properly.
>  So, instead of encoding the Qur'an using the ligature directly, we instead
>  use 0644 + 0675 and put the harakat correctly.

OK, I think I captured what you note above in the proposal.

  http://arabeyes.org/~nadim/tmp/qu_prop.pdf

Do please give it a careful read and report back any issues.
If the doc still makes sense :-) and is clear enough to follow,
we are ready to submit it.  I believe there are NO other issues
that require Unicode's attention with regard to this matter, is
that correct ?

Salam.

 - Nadim



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash