Re: Which type of mushaf ins Unicode encoding?

[Abdulhaq Lynch <al-arabeyes at alinsyria dot fsnet dot co dot uk>]

On Saturday 25 June 2005 12:42, Thomas Milo wrote:
> Unicode wants to encode writing systems, not conventions within a writing
> system nor graphic variantions for the same abstract units of writing that
> deal with a particular document.
>
> In the case of Mushafs, this means that if the same orthographic unit
> (grapheme) varies in form between Mushafs, but not in function. E.g.
> various instances of regional tamween forms that all boil down to the exact
> same thing), propose to encode the abstraction, do not bother them with
> calligraphic/typographic idosyncracies. By the same token, do not encode
> ras khaa, when it is a sukun (this one slupped through thenet because
> nobody knew why it was there). As a first step in digitization we should
> reduce all the units of script to their abstract essence and define their
> various appearances as regional variations/traditions that can be dealt
> with by font technology and text mark-up.
>

Makes sense.

What do you think of my example of the pakistani tanween with small meem, 
indicating tanween + iqlaab, which from the grapheme point of view is in 
addition to and offset from the tanween? 
(http://kprayertime.sourceforge.net/calligraphy/tanween-dammataan-iqlaab.png)

Doesn't this indicate that iqlaab should be encoded as such, and not 
incorporated into the tanween?

wassalaam
abdulhaq