[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Unicode Font Maker
- To: General Arabization Discussion <general at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: Re: Unicode Font Maker
- From: Meor Ridzuan Meor Yahaya <meor dot ridzuan at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:06:34 +0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GPf1ll9+LntmZUkawtiBkNbi8QMyVZhWZ/ol3G6jWFx3ga/RMlXydtIFX0sLSHvvzqZwyltEOytmVmKbbDDGAUPJUacDt3f0BEw2huZjqD3YdTpUWPWibdBJ/9obNR4rA9mRnJQmdGyvQRj/vOv4RUSsqIeSkQkyhMLl6nSWe1M=
So it seems that I misunderstood you ealier mail... Sorry for that.
>
> I am strongly in favour of ligatures, but against malfunctioning or
> incomplete ligatures. Hence my somewhat sarcastic comment.
>
Anyway, I still don't quite get what you mean by saying the font it a
tremendous improvement over MS "Arabic Typesetting" font? Is it
because of it's feature, or it's look? I have to agree, that the look
of Arabic Typesetting is not that great, but it does have more feature
compare to those fonts by SIL.
I've sent to you a PDF file showing the font that I'm working on,
basically without using a single ligature (I use different colors for
each glyph just to prove my point) and yet this preserved most
alternate glpyh style (still not complete yet, but not sure how to
further). S, what do you say about it? Of course , the font face is
taken directly from the actual Madinah mushaf.
Do you have ideas on arabic justification that you don't mind sharing with us?
Regards.