Re: Unicode Quranic Glyphs Proposal

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

> On Yau al-Thulatha 19 Rabi` al-Thaani 1425 05:50 pm, Mete Kural wrote:
> > > I took a quick look and concluded that the document
> > > is a bit misguided. I
> > > call it so, because Unicode does not encode GLYPHS,
> > > it encodes CHARACTERS.
>
> No no they are CHARACTERS not GLYPHS since they have different meanings.
It's
> not a matter of shape. Some one should explain this Mr. Thomas Milo
(already
> subscribed here) and others involved, am I wrong?

Let's see if my subscription works. If you mean characters, don't call them
glyphs.

> > > As you may have observed on the Unicode mailing
> > > list, I just tabled this
> > > subject. In observed, among others, that what this
> > > proposal calls
> > > "sequential fathatan" etc. can just as well be
> > > called "repeated fatha" etc.,
>
> You mean I need to put two fatha's one behind the others to represent it?
Why
> not? Umm!
>
>
> > > There is no need to include ligatures including
> > > trailing alifs etc., because
> > > the Unicode standard is not a glyph list. The block
> > > of Presentation Forms
> > > should be ignored, it was a mistake.
>
> What is the mistake? Presentation Forms? I think Unicode is something you
need
> a lot of reading to understand fully. :(

Well, here's where the difference between glyphs and characters is the clue.
What you see are characters, what you understand are characters. For
instance, you see a ligature (glyph) you understand two ore three
characters. Glyphs are for font technology, characters are encoded.

Thomas Milo
DecoType
http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc25/b051.html