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

[Meor Ridzuan Meor Yahaya <meor dot ridzuan at gmail dot com>]

Well, my view is, it really depends on what we would like to achieve.
If we want to encode the quran with all the linguistic feature and
tajweed information embeded, that this probably the best way to go.
However, there are 2 drawback: I don't see unicode have the support
for it now, or willing to support for it. Maybe Thomas knows better.
Second, no off the shelves will be able to support it either, thus we
need to develop ourselves. I don't see this one easy either, because
even the current quran program is not moving much.

So, to get as much support as we can, I think the best is to propose
what is the simplest of all: just include the sequential tanween, 3
new codepoint to unicode. That's it.(of course , some other codepoint
need to be added as well in order to render the quran properly) It
will be the easiest to application developer also. If we were to
encode the tajweed as well as other liguistic information , I think
that's where XML come into picture.

As for searching, the get the most accurate result is to develop the
algorithm for it. This, we can't escape from rolling our own. However,
this is better than the first situation, where no application can
support even for rendering it, let alone to search. If we succeed in
embeding the tajweed and liguistic information using XML, with all the
searching algorithm in place, I think only then a new proposal can be
submitted to unicode for their support.

Wassalam.

On 6/23/05, Abdulhaq Lynch <al-arabeyes at alinsyria dot fsnet dot co dot uk> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2005 14:21, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> 
> >
> > But we also should not hesitate to use the purely descriptive
> > terminology of modern linguistics.  Remember most of the implementers
> > who look at the encoding will have little or no Arabic.  Terms like
> > "idgham" are definitely preferred as official names, but they should be
> > accompanied by a precise English-language definition.
> >
> 
> If by implementers you mean the IT guys coding up fonts and font renderers,
> then I don't expect them to know modern english linguistic terms either. They
> will need clear instructions on how the encoding is to be used, whatever
> terminology is employed.
> 
> If you are talking about those like yourself and myself, i.e. interested in
> arabic and the quran, then I should say that a few days spent learning the
> basics of tajweed would provide enormous benefit to them in terms of
> understanding the symbols they're looking at. This applies to arabs and
> non-arabs alike.
> 
> wassalaam
> abdulhaq
> 
> 
> > Or, maybe not.  Maybe we should write the encoding design and rational
> > in Arabic as the primary reference, and then translate to English.
> > Modern Arabic has modern linguistic terminology too.  I rather prefer
> > this approach, myself.
> >
> > -g
> > _______________________________________________
> > General mailing list
> > General at arabeyes dot org
> > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at arabeyes dot org
> http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
>