On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:28:41 +0000
Martin J. Dürst via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
> > Basic Arabic shaping, at the level of a typewriter, is
> > straightforward enough to leave to a terminal emulator, as Eli has
> > suggested. Lam-alif would be trickier - one cell or two?
>
> Same for other characters. A medial Beh/Teh/Theh/... (ببب) in any
> reasonably decent rendering should take quite a bit less space than a
> Seen or Sheen (سسس). I remember that the multilingual Emacs version
> mostly written by Ken'ichi Handa (was it called mEmacs or nEmacs or
> something like that?) had different widths only just for Arabic. In
> Thunderbird, which is what I'm using here, I get hopelessly
> stretched/squeezed glyph shapes, which definitely don't look good.
It's a long time since I last knowingly read typewritten Arabic script,
but on reading the description of Haddad's design of the Arabic
typewriter, I see what you mean. My point is correct, but your point
is another argument for having single- and double-width characters.
Richard.
Received on Thu Jan 31 2019 - 16:11:34 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jan 31 2019 - 16:11:34 CST