From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:33:44 CDT
The Unicode Arabic is based on an ASMO standard, which I think was accepted
by WG2 before the time of Unicode.
I think this was discussed here some time ago.
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of asadek@st-elias.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:28 PM
> To: Erkki Kolehmainen
> Cc: Bob Hallissy; unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erkki Kolehmainen" <erkki.kolehmainen@kotus.fi>
>
> > The corresponding ISO committee is ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC2 and its WG2 is
> > specifically dealing with the 10646. All WG2 meetings are minuted
> > in great detail (thanks to Uma), and the outcomes of the ad hoc
> > groups of experts that are being set up on the side as needed to
> > resolve major issues are presented as WG documents to provide the
> > basis for decisions by the full WG.
>
> Excellent.
>
> Could I then see the documented and minuted rationale for
> using a static (non-productive) Arabic character encoding
> model? What were the issues and risks the WG2 looked at
> before making its decision not to encode combining arabic
> three dots, two dots, etc.? Or did it just follow what the
> UTC had decided for it? This UTC documented rationale is
> apparently not to be found on the Unicode Web site (a series
> of emails among the myriads of archived emails is not a UTC
> decision, I would take).
>
> Again, I don't consider this a small decision, some minutiae
> about whether to accept this rare and exotic character or not
> which may not deserve a written explanation, but a
> fundamental aspect regarding an important World script.
>
>
> Ashraf Sadek
> --
> St Elias Coptic Community
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 13:36:58 CDT