Re: Proposed new characters updated in Pipeline Table

Guten Tag Philippe Verdy,

am Montag, 15. August 2011 um 19:38 schrieben Sie:

> 2011/8/13 mmarx <mmarx_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de>:
>>>> I attach a Garshuni document from
>>>> Beit al-Qammar showing Arab vowel
>>>> marks -- just as the Syriac communmties
>>>> are using Syriac vowel marks in Arabic
>>>> script text -- and (in the second line
>>>> on the left) wasla above olaph.
>>>>
>>>> So whatever the status of wasla mark
>>>> will be fore Arabic, for Syriac/Garshuni
>>>> it is need as a normal mark in normal text.
>>
>>> Unicode cannot encode a combining Wasla (because of various stability
>>> policies), so if Syriac needs a Wasla to be shown only over a letter
>>> or two, one needs to propose precomposed characters for them. Just
>>> like the existing Arabic Alef-Wasla.

> Why not? If the character is new, it can perfectly be encoded with
> whatever character property is needed, including with a non-zero
> combining class, if it fits. The stability policy aboud combining
> sequences is only for sequences of characters that are already encoded
> and for which decomposition mappings (and the related standard
> normalizations), as well as basic case mappings in the UCD cannot be
> modified.
> The stability policy does not concern currently unassigned code points
> (except possibly a few ones: the directionality of all code points
> within some designated RTL blocks, should they be currently assigned
> to characters or not; and the reservation of all assigned and
> unassigned code points in the few blocks allocated only for combining
> characters).

I took Roozbeh's answer for the final word,
because the unicode world is still full
of secrets to me. I guess he knows from
years of experience.
But I admit that it strikes me as a bit odd
given the fact that there is both
ARABIC LETTER ALEF WITH MADDA ABOVE (U+0622)
and ARABIC MADDAH ABOVE (U+0653).
So why shouldn't there be a ARABic/SYRIac Wasla Above?
But as it is really just one precomposed
"Alaph Wasla" that has to be encoded instead,
it does not matter which way the result is achieved.
ten years ago this has already come up:
http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2001-m09/0319.html
Received on Mon Aug 15 2011 - 13:23:09 CDT