Re: Sequential Fathatan Final Form (Items 9 and 10)

[Mohammed Yousif <mhdyousif at gmx dot net>]

On ثلاثاء 15 يونيو 2004 20:45, Mete Kural wrote:
> Salaam Mohammed,
>
> This is the sequential fathatan final form (items 9
> and 10) thread.
>
> >   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?
>
> Good humor :-) 

  Wow, at last someone got it the way I intended it to be.
  This is great :-)

> The context I'm talking about is the 
> characters adjacent to the sequential fathatan. The
> sequential fathatan found before an alef but after a
> connecting letter will look like the image in Item 9.
> The sequential fathatan found before an alef but after
> a non-connecting letter will look like the image in
> Item 10.
>

  I agree with you that since sequential fathatan are only used
  in the Qur'an, the font can assume that the needed character
  is the one in the image.
  But my point is that they have to consistent with the regular
  fathatan.
  If I typed regular fathatan and then Alef, How can the font
  decide if I want the form like in the image (where the fathatan
  is as high as the end of the Alef), or the expected form for
  regular text (where the fathatan is *just* above the previous
  character not as high as the end of the Alef).


> It does not matter to Unicode what font technology is
> used behind the scenes. Be it OpenType, ATSUI,
> Graphite, or bitmap fonts, Unicode does not care.
> Unicode defines how the encoding should be done and
> how the result should look like, but doesn't impose on
> what font technology should be used in the process. So
> before OpenType dies, another better font technology
> would probably appear that does all this much better
> than OpenType does. And in terms of the redundancy you
> mention, all of this dynamic substitution
> functionality is built into OpenType, it's not like
> you're writing C++ code here. You can use Microsoft's
> WYSIWYG tools if you wish.
>

  It's still redundancy and to be honest using C++ is easier for me
  than using Microsoft tools.

> >   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, I cannot possibly respond to every point you
> make because you make "a lot" of points :-) I have a
> day time job among other things to worry about too.
> Please be more concise in the future and insha'Allah I
> will try to respond to as many points of yours as I
> can.
>

  Thanks for taking the time and replying to what you replied
  too.
  But the thing is that you say "No" and when I answer that
  you ignore it and then in another post you talk with that
  "No" attitude again although you still didn't justify that "No".

  Please when you say No to something and I reply to it either:
   + Reply to my reply or
   + Don't reference that "No" until you have some time.

 I think like that we can avoid circular discussions when you say
 "No" and I say "Yes" and then you say "No" and then I have to
 copy/paste what I wrote before and say "Yes" ...etc

 But in anyway, I didn't mean to offend you, we are all busy but
 this issue is extremely important to me and I want my reply to
 be reasonable that's why they are long, if I write short replies,
 you will find them incomplete.
  
-- 
Mohammed Yousif
Egypt