From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Nov 27 2002 - 10:29:30 EST
At 12:34 AM 11/27/2002, Amélie DELTOUR wrote:
>How should the LAM-ALEF ligature be vocalized in Arabic according to Unicode?
>In texts on the Internet, I find the codes in the following order for
>instance: "U+0644 U+0627 U+064E" (LAM-ALEF-FATHA). The logical order would
>rather be LAM-FATHA-ALEF.
>The problem is that if the LAM-FATHA-ALEF order is used, then the LAM-ALEF
>ligature is not recognized in common display programs (IE, NS6 or MS Word).
It will be if the font is a correctly made OpenType font, and the software
is using an appropriate version of Microsoft's Unicode Script Processor
(Uniscribe), i.e. Windows 2000 or later. It is possible to make the
ligature substitution lookups in the OpenType font ignore 'marks' such as
FATHA. So the sequence LAM+FATHA+ALEF renders as LAM_ALEF+FATHA. OpenType
glyph positioning than then be used to correctly place the FATHA over the
>If I understand the Unicode Standard well, the FATHA should be treated as
>a "transparent character" and should not disturb the representation of the
>LAM-ALEF ligature. In that case, it would only be an implementation
>problem of the display programs...
>However, I can notice that on the Internet, in vocalized texts (Quran,
>Bible) the LAM-ALEF ligature is most often bad vocalized : the diacritic
>mark is before the ligature, or after, or in most cases is not there at
>all (in particular in the case of "li + alef-hamza") - which is quite annoying.
This is an incorrect implementation, probably resulting from a convention
developed for an older font format in which this character ordering hack
has been used to position the diacritic over the LAM_ALEF ligature.
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org
It is necessary that by all means and cunning,
the cursed owners of books should be persuaded
to make them available to us, either by argument
or by force. - Michael Apostolis, 1467
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 27 2002 - 11:17:01 EST