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

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



On Wednesday 22 June 2005 09:08, Thomas Milo wrote:
> What's the objection? It would be just as transparent as you solution.
> Anyway, I like your approach. If it is to find any acceptance, there needs
> to be canonical equivalence with legacy encoding accoding to this formula:
>
> TANWEEN                         =                 <vowel><small noon>
> =      conventional tanween
> TAMWEEM                         =                <vowel><small meem>
> IDGHAM                              =                <vowel><idgham code>
>
> Note that this is different - and better - than Meor's and my earlier
> suggestion to retain full tanween followed by a modulation mark.
>

I like this idea however I don't like (as you've probably guessed by now) 
mixing up what is pure text, in the sense that it changes the meaning of the 
words, and what indicates pronounciation. Therefore I would modify this such 
that IDGHAAM, IKHFAA AND IQLAAB (TAMWEEN) are indicated by subsequent 
codepoints:

TAMWEEM/IQLAAB = <vowel><small nuun><iqlaab> (was using small meem)
IDGHAAM = <vowel><small nuun><idghaam> (was using shadda on subsequent letter)
IKHFAA = <vowel><small nuun><ikhfaa>  (was sequential blahblah)

and arguably, because it is redundant, I would add

IDHHAAR = <vowel><small nuun><idhhaar>

Likewise I would change the nuun with iqlaab, ikhfaa etc from

NUUN + IQLAAB was = <nuun><small meem>

to

NUUN + IQLAAB = <nuun><sukuun><iqlaab>

etc.

This has great benefits in terms of searching in that the tajweed codes can be 
treated as whitespace and all vowels and sukuuns are easily identified.

I would also change the name from <small nuun> to <tanween> so as to move away 
from glyph based naming conventions. Adopting good labels does help clearer 
thinking.


wassalaam
abdulahq