[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal for the Basis of a Codepoint Extension to Unicode for the Encoding of the Quranic Manuscripts



> c.  Your proposal rightly diverges from Unicode.  So why stop with new
> specialized semantic categories?  Fix what's broken in Unicode.  For
> example, Unicode's idea of tanween is pretty bad, IMO.  If I could
> design it again I would have a single tanween character to be added
> after the vowel signs.  The compound hamza "characters" in Unicode
> should be decomposed too, IMO.  Textual analysis would be much easier
> then.  Then of course there's the bidi fallacy in all its ridiculous
> glory.  There are lots of ways to better capture the semantics of Arabic
> text, but the Unicode bunch is unlikely to ever approve of such an
> approach.
>

The idea about the tanween and hamza is interesting. We do have to ask the 
question if in the 21st century we need to restrict ourselves to early 
typewriter-style character encodings. However, we also have to pay regard to 
the huge volume of data that is already out there, and the substantial amount 
of code to render it.

I'm going to write a separate message about this.


> d.  You don't need higher-level grammars like XML.  My own opinion is
> that primary goal of an encoding design should be to migrate
> intelligence out of the application and into the text, subject to the
> syntactic constraints of a plain text encoding.  So long as you can give
> a clear and concise definition of a particular semantic category, it is
> a good candidate for encoding as plain text.
>

I agree. An important factor is being able to render the quran as it is 
usually rendered, and using current technology. Injecting XML into that would 
mean that the encoding could not be displayed in everyday software.

> I once came across a relevant message from none other than Richard
> Stallman.  It was on a list for gcc development, in response to a
> question about conformance to the ISO definition of C.  RMS' response
> was simply that standards are merely recommendations, and that the needs
> of the community take precedence.  Which seems very wise to me; Unicode
> is so riddled with problems it is bound to be superceded some day, so
> blindly following it even where it doesn't meet the needs of one's
> community seems questionnable.
>

Yes.

> keep up the good work,
>
> -gregg

wa anta
regards
Abdulhaq