Re: Tanween variants and Unicode

["Mete Kural" <metek at touchtonecorp dot com>]

Hello Nadim,

From: Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>
>Out of curiosity, who is the "we" in the 'we would discourage' above ?

I meant Tom and me. But I would not like to speak for Tom although I do know his view regarding this tanween issue and he doesn't support proposing six new codepoints for each tanween and rather supports the <tanween+modifier> pattern. This was proposed by himself not by me and I agreed that it is the appropriate way to handle the matter at hand.

>As noted without buy-in from those involved with unicode on this list we
>have an extremely limited change to get anything through to the committee.

That is why I posted about this on this list in the first place. But it seems like everybody has a different approach to handle the issue and not willing to change their minds except maybe Meor. As far as I understand (referenced individuals, correct me if I'm wrong):

Tom and I support the <tanween+modifier> approach.
Gregg supports the <vowel+modifier> approach (by vowel, I mean fatha/damma/kasra here).
Meor is somewhat neutral but he prefers the single codepoint for each tanween variant approach since it is easier to implement.
You and Mohammed Yousif support the single codepoint for each tanween variant approach.

Kind regards,
Mete

--
Mete Kural
Touchtone Corporation
714-755-2810
--