Re: Quranic Proposal - Conclusions

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

On ثلاثاء 15 يونيو 2004 11:04, Mete Kural wrote:
> Item 8:
> This item should be removed from the joint proposal
> and added to the seperate Arabeyes.org-only proposal.
>

 Mete, I agree with Nadim that we need some time, but please at least comment
 on Item 8, your suggestion regarding it (to recognize it by a fatha) won't
 work at all because all of them has fatha preceding it.
 Please comment on this one, then give us some more time.
 If you have a suggestion other than using a fatha to trigger the new
 contextual behavior, then I would like to hear it.


> Item 9 and 10:
> These items should be removed from the joint proposal.
> My recommendation would be not to add these items even
> to the Arabeyes.org-only proposal because these two
> items are already covered by Item 1, sequential
> fathatan. These cases are just contexual instances of
> the sequential fathatan proposed in Item 1. These
> should not be seperate codepoints but rather contexual
> instances of Item 1 which should be documented as part
> of the Arabeyes.org-only proposal for Item 1. 
> Fonts 
> can easily substitute the necessary glyphs for these
> cases.
>

  You forgot that you cannot know what the needed glyph is based on
  context.
  If it's Qur'an, the proposed glyph is needed, if it's regular text, the more
  simple one is needed.
  How can you expect a font to know if it's rendering Qur'an or not?
  Do you expect us to add a proposal to the specs of OpenType to force the
  user to tell it first if he/she is using the Qur'an before rendering?

  I won't go any further but I want to make a final point.
  Depending on OpenType means simply that we cannot use regular fonts
  and that means that we won't be able to see the Qur'an in the Linux Console
  for example since it needs bitmap fonts.
  Another thing is redundancy, for every OpenType font out there, you need to
  'well, program it!' with the same instructions over and over again.
  The last thing is, what will be the case when people stop using OpenType?
  I can see some more people (after we die) will start from here again and try
  to add them to Unicode.

> Items 11 and 12:
> These items should be removed from the proposal.
> Similar to the above, these Items are covered by Item
> 4, fatha with small meem. These two items are simply
> contexual instances of the fatha with small meem
> allograph proposed in joint proposal for Item 4. These
> should not be seperate codepoints but rather contexual
> instances of Item 4 which should be documented as part
> of the joint proposal for Item 4. Fonts can easily
> substitute the necessary glyphs for these cases.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mete
>

  Mete, again I agree with Nadim that we need some time but to be
  honest, I answered to all your criticisms "reasonably" and you kept
  ignoring them.

-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt