From: Richard Wordingham (richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 17:22:37 CDT
Ashraf Sadek wrote (and I apologise for mangling the name before):
> From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>
>> The concept that the a base Arabic
>> form could be combined with any combination of distinguishing dots
>> (or other marks) wasn't formed,
>
> You mean understood by the Unicode and ISO experts?
I mean conceived of as a useful and natural way of thinking, more systematic
than the similarities between 'b' and 'p' or between 'a' and 'd'.
>>and would now be stymied by the
>> 'stability pact' that requires that anything that is now in Normal
>> Form Composed or Normal Form Decomposed remain so for ever.
>
> I see: stuck with mistake, are we?
In the long term it should not matter - the addition of new letters should
slow to a very slow trickle. Once a letter is supported, it is probably
better for it not to be decomposable - unless there is a significant impact
on font design.
> How about the simultaneous (I think) and recent (after the stability
> normalisation pact) encoding of combining SMALL V and precomposed U+0756
> Bā' with SMALL V? Why encode a precompose character now?
I was going to suggest the explanation that Bob Hallissy has just
confidently made.
Richard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 17:28:20 CDT