Re: Quranic Proposal - Logical Codes

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

On ثلاثاء 15 يونيو 2004 01:23, Mete Kural wrote:
>
> So basically there are cases where we need to use
> logical codes because the other alternative (one
> unique code for every combination) can become
> redundant.

  Please remember that we are talking about only 3 characters.

> The input of these logical codes can be 
> simplified for the user at the keyboard layer. For
> example, for the sequential fathatan the user can
> enter "shift+fathatan". Similar for other variant
> dammatan's, and kasratan's.
>

  I pressed 'shift-a' on my keyboard and the result was..
  'A'.

  So before asking for the use of a logical code for Arabic, by the
  same logic, they have to be used first by the Latin ranges.
  (28 characters for capital letters as opposed to only 3 charcters
   required by this type of Tanween ).
  That is, either we add the three tanween characters or we first remove
  the capital letters from Unicode and add a logical code then (and only
  then) add that logical code to Arabic.


> >   But dammatan looks very different from
> > damma+damma.
>
> As far as I know, damma+damma is never used in Arabic
> in a sequence to represent two dammas next to each
> other coming after a base letter. Damma, fatha, and
> kasra by definition associate with only "one base
> letter". So having two seperate dammas for one letter
> is not used in Arabic.

 I didn't mean that. I meant that the tanween (dammatan)
 doesn't look like two dammas next to each other at all.
 so encoding it as damma+damma should return a new glyph
 that looks really different (i.e. the damma glyph cannot be used
 here)

> That's why Tom is suggesting 
> that this un-used code sequence can be declared
> canonically equivalent to a dammatan. Likewise
> kasra+kasra and fatha+fatha can be declared
> canonically equivalent to kasratan and fathatan
> respectively. Of course these canonical equivalence
> definitions, once accepted, would be part of the
> Unicode standard, so it wouldn't be just our way of
> doing it but the standard way of doing it.
>

  As I asked earlier, why this is not done first for the umlaut
  german characters in the Latin range?
  The Arabic range has to be consistent with the Latin ranges
  and with the rest of the unicode standard.

-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt