From: Andreas Prilop (nhtcapri@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 08:16:53 CST
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Michael Everson wrote:
> ISO 15924 isn't an academic exercise. There were
> specific bibliographical reasons for giving codes
> to Latf and Latg. Specifically, a book of
> Schiller's poetry might be published in Fraktur
> orthography or in Roman orthography, or a book by
> Ó Criomhthain might be published in Gaelic
> orthography or in Roman orthography.
>
> Are Kufi or Nastaliq are distinguished in a similar fashion?
Indeed they are! Persian and Urdu are usually printed in
Nastaliq, which can be compared to print in Fraktur or Gaelic.
Persian and Urdu /may/ be printed in Naskh - especially
when printing in Nastaliq causes problems.
On the other hand, Arabic is never printed in Nastaliq, afaik.
I think it would be useful to be able to specify different
Arabic scripts like "Simplified" and "Traditional" for Chinese.
Follow the links "Further reading" at
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/urdu-alphabet.html
to learn more.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 08:21:33 CST