Re: Tanween variants and Unicode

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

--- Mete Kural <metek at touchtonecorp dot com> wrote:
> I am not proposing that we should use a <tanween+modifier> sequence
> for tanween with small meem and assimilated tanween just to save the
> hassle of proposing six extra new codepoints to Unicode (although it
> would truly be quite a hassle to try to propose six new codepoints).
> It is because using a <tanween+modifier> sequence preserves the text's
> graphemic integrity better and results in a cleaner encoding. A fathatan
> is a fathatan, regardless of whether its pronounciation changes slightly.
> An assimilated fathatan or a fathatan with small meem is still a fathatan,
> in fact it is just as much fathatan as any other fathatan. For hundreds of
> years all of these fathatans were written the same exact way. In more
> recent times scribes have decided to write these two kinds of fathatans
> slightly differently to cue the un-educated reciter to pronounce correctly.
> For that reason the logical way to encode this is the <fathatan+modifier>
> sequence in order to preserve the fathatan codepoint. Using a seperate
> codepoint will break this graphemic integrity.

You're free to reason it out whichever way you like, but I still think
we should see a code-point for each of these new characters.  Doing that
would free everyone to do what they please - you can proceed with your
implementation method(s) and others can count on knowing which code-point
to potentially access if they opted for an alternate realization.

Something tells me I'm repeating myself - the point is not so much your
way (or mine) is better/best/more-reaonsable, but the point is to keep an
open mind on how people might potentially use this and give them all the
freedoms they've been afforded.  What is being asked is very much within
the domain of what Unicode has done and is doing.

> Your argument is that we can compromise from the graphemic integrity yet
> another time in order to allow legacy font technologies to render these
> tanween variants. My opinion is that it is better not to introduce yet
> another blunder into Unicode Arabic in order to support the legacy.
> We have different biases. Your bias is towards legacy support, my bias
> is towards graphemic integrity. This analysis doesn't resolve our
> differences but at least we can identify them better.

Agreed, but at the end of the day we should be putting forth enabling
technologies (past, present and future) for people to use and not limit
them to what some of us think is _THE_ solution.  My bias doesn't preclude
you from doing what you'd like, whereas your's does and there-in lies
and serious issue.

> So if you want to propose six new codepoints for tanween variants by all
> means go ahead. We are already struggling with just one codepoint [hamza].
> Besides that I don't think it is a good idea to propose these six new
> codepoints, I wouldn't even have the time and energy to get six new
> codepoints accepted by the Unicode community anyways. If the Unicode
> community allows these six codepoints by any chance, then with canonical
> equivalences they would be made equivalent to <tanween+modifier> sequence,
> that is if the <tanween+modifier> sequence ever makes it into Unicode.

To propose or not propose is not a question of difficulty and we most
certainly should not shy away from it due to that.  Again we should be
going forward with a complete solution to what is there now, we have
almost all we need with the exception of a few characters that might
have been overlooked for us to have a fully specified means to encode
the Quran.  You have a different way of doing things which doesn't
require much from unicode and that is all great, but shouldn't we at
least try to address the missing pieces that are in unicode now fully
irrespective of difficulty and time ?  Why pull the plug on what is
there now which many people are and will continue to use for generations
to come in lieu of an alternative - let's fix/add what is needed there
and also work on alternatives and leave it be...  Seems rather encompassing
to me, yet I really don't understand the outright opposition to this.
Again, don't think of this as better/worse or old/new but think of it
as a means to enable functionality for some.

Salam.

 - Nadim



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs