From: Titus Nemeth (sehstoerung@sonance.net)
Date: Fri May 01 2009 - 10:57:57 CDT
Roozbeh,
thank you for your elaborate answer.
> Would it be possible for you to upload a scan or photo of the word
> somewhere and send the list a link to the image?
>
please find it here:
http://sehstoerung.sonance.net/com/detail.jpg
http://sehstoerung.sonance.net/com/full-line.jpg
The French translation of the line is:
"et ils disent: "Dans ton oeuvre précédente tu n'as traité - Dieu t'en
récompense! - que de la Lui divine et des ses commandements".
BTW, the Alif with a horizontal bar in the preceding word doesn't seem
to have a Unicode representation either - does anybody know about this
letter?
> Another commonly-cited case is the case of U+0643 ARABIC LETTER KAF vs U
> +06A9 ARABIC LETTER KEHEH. In some languages, the glyph shapes used in
> Unicode charts are both considered OK, while there is usually a
> preference for one of the forms over the other.
>
Haven't they different semantic values in Persian and Ottoman Turkish?
> There are various reasons some of these pairs have been encoded
> separately. For example, some languages may use both forms with a
> phonemic or semantic difference. For example, while U+06CC ARABIC LETTER
> FARSI YEH and U+06D2 are considered graphical variants in Persian
and indeed in pre-typographic Arabic.
> Generally, I would recommend encoding the text graphically if your
> readership would be specialists: If the source material puts a dot under
> the Feh, use U+06A2. That way, you would keep the distinction in the
> source material. You can also provide a standardized/simplified version
> to ease searching with software tools that don't know there is a
> relation between U+06A2 and U+0641, or for cases when fonts to render
> the text are hard to find.
>
> Still, if the text is to be read by the general public only, you may
> want to only use the standardized orthography of the common language.
>
For me the first scenario applies - this is a historic study, there's no
need and interest in simplified (hacked) encoding.
> Oh, definitely. To cite an commonly available resource, you can usually
> find Wikipedia articles using such characters easily.
>
> But generally, fonts and keyboards are usually the barrier for adoption
> of Unicode characters. Until there is an easy way to enter and display a
> certain character, users tend to avoid it.
>
That's exactly the point, so I wouldn't be so sure about the use of
these Unicode values. I reckon, if anybody would want the regionally
preferred shapes, he would "hack" his font, rather than bothering about
Unicode.
Best
Titus
-- upcoming trips: May 4-7, Amsterdam May 27-June 3, Vienna -- http://sehstoerung.sonance.net/ -- 11, rue Lesage bâtiment A, 5e étage 75020 Paris France -- F landline: (++33)-(0)-1-71 93 32 95 F mobile: (++33)-(0)-6-10 04 88 46 AT mobile: (++43)-(0)-650-911 0679 -- Skype: titusgarciaramon -- "I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours" Bob Dylan, Talking World War III Blues
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 01 2009 - 11:02:37 CDT
