Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?

From: Andreas Prilop (nhtcapri@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 11:20:47 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?"

    On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Michael Everson wrote:

    >> There is no orthographic difference between Latf and Latn in German.
    >
    > Long s.

    "Long s" is U+017F, which exists in both Latf and Latn.
    The Unicode standard shows this letter in normal Latin type,
    not Fraktur. In the past, you would use the "long s" in the
    same way for the normal Latin as for Fraktur.

       Nastaliq has U+06C1 and U+06C3
    where Naskh has U+0647 and U+0629.

    Could you please answer to this?

    > A well-defined set of things that need to be distinguished in a wide
    > variety of well-known contexts.

      "well-defined set of things"
      "in a wide variety"
      "well-known contexts"

    Words without content.

    >> I consider the difference between Naskh and Nastaliq greater than
    >> between Latin and Latin (Fraktur) and perhaps comparable to Hans vs.
    >> Hant.

    > In theory, or in the realm of practical applications, which is what
    > ISO 15924 is for?

    For practical applications; namely to specify the variant of
    the Arabic script for Arabic/Persian/Urdu text.

    It is currently possible to specify the script variants "Hans"
    and "Hant". It should likewise be possible to specify the
    script variants "Naskh" and "Nastaliq".

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 11:22:28 CST