Re: Question about small noon

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

Tom,
Who are "we"? Will this introduce a new code for hamza? Care to eloborate?

On 3/14/06, Thomas Milo <t dot milo at chello dot nl> wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> >> Thomas Milo wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Tatweel is not a grapheme. I have come to the conclusion, that the
> >>> letter shaping mechanism needs a new catagory: amphibuous
> >>> (literally "between both", between skeleton and vowel as a
> >>> category, as well as placed between two surrounding letters - with
> >>> optional and separately encoded tatweel. This idea handles the
> >>> problems with hamza U+0621, superscript alef, trailing/superscript
> >>> retroflex and possibly even the superscript waw. Think of it, if
> >>> you will.
> >> It's a lot simpler if you define tatweel as a chameleon instead of a
> >> frog.  ;)  It takes on ink or not depending on the inking of its
> >> neighbors, and it can bear stacking characters.  Simple and elegant.
>
> We have now a working amphibious hamza, as well as a Trashideh mechanisme
> that deals with callgraphically misplaced tatweels.
>
> t
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at arabeyes dot org
> http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
>