Re: Questions about yeh, hamzah on yeh, alef maksura and dotless ba

["Thomas Milo" <t dot milo at chello dot nl>]

Meor Ridzuan Meor Yahaya wrote:
>> I fully agree. 1/2 and 3/4 are all a single grapheme. They look like
>> ducks, the quack like a ducks, they are b-y ducks. And like the
>> hamza, the twindots are also to be encoded as a separate character
>
> So, you are suggesting to encode everything using a single code, which
> probably something like 649.Then, encode the 2 dots, hamza, small
> alefs seperately, right? Could you explain what is the benefit of
> using this approach? First impression, I think it will make it more
> difficult, especially for searching. For example, if I were to search
> for normal yeh, I need to include the dot as well in my searching for
> initial and medial form. But for standalone and final form, it is not
> necessary, right?

Problems with searching or typing? Not at all. With your present input
method you don't need to add dots separately either, so why would that be
different with composite encoding? It could all be done with the same
keyboard and the same keystrokes - though they will generate different
codes, of course. The only difference would be the availability of extra
precision in deleting (like with the lam-alef key on Latin "b") and the
possibilty to enter any detail of the script as a separate Unicode point.

t