AFAIK, the only place it is used is as the second Noon of ننجي in Aya 88, Sura 21.
Regards, Khaled On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:39:55PM -0700, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > BTW, Khaled, do you have examples of U+06E8 in the text of the Koran? I > would appreciate sura and aya numbers if you do. > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Roozbeh Pournader <rooz...@google.com>wrote: > > > Let me try to approach the problem from another angle. > > > > Unicode, although originally planned to be more semantic, has become more > > and more a graphical encoding. This can be evidenced by the new characters > > encoded or not encoded. The UTC continuously refers people to use existing > > code points for things that are graphically similar to already-encoded > > characters but are semantically very different, but encodes new characters > > that are semantically the same as existing characters, but their exact > > visual representation is important and is based on rules that are very hard > > to derive. > > > > This is inevitable to some degree, since text rendering technology and > > fonts should not be expected to be very complex. So plain text > > representation becomes more visual in order to make life easier for the > > rendering engines. > > > > This can be evidenced by a lot of the newer characters in the Arabic > > blocks. The open tanweens or arrowheads in the Arabic Extended-A block were > > encoded because they were graphically different, while the committee did > > not encode a "waw with madda above" and recommended "waw+madda above" to be > > used for it instead. The diacritical hamza was the most controversial, and > > the controversy is the main reason for the hole at U+08A1 (it is reserved > > for a Beh With Hamza Above, which will be in Unicode 7.0). > > > > All in all, this means that UTC considers anything that very much looks > > like U+0653 a madda above, and anything that may need to be visually > > distinguished from it and be smaller in size a small high madda. The glyphs > > used in the chart show a significant size difference, and has been showing > > that difference since the small high madda got encoded in Unicode 2.0. > > Unicode actually doesn't prescribe exact usage of a lot of the Koranic > > marks, because the marks may be used very differently across the various > > Koranic traditions from Indonesia to Morocco. > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to consider madda to be a certain kind of > > hamza. Yes, in the modern Arabic language Alef+madda above is semantically > > equivalent to hamza+alef or alef+alef, but there is no hint of a hamza > > semantic when some minority languages using the Arabic script takes a madda > > and puts it over a waw to get a new vowel. > > > > I understand that means that there may be no "real" semantic difference > > between a normal madda and a small high madda, but there's really no > > semantic difference between a yeh and a farsi yeh either, and they are > > separately encoded. Unicode is quite graphical in its encoding. > > > > Regarding U+06C7 and U+06C8, the UTC has agreed to not encode such > > characters anymore, except for the use of hamza above for diacritic usages > > of non-hamza semantics. So there may as well be future siblings for U+0681, > > U+076C, U+08A1, and U+08A8, but no future siblings to U+06C7 and U+06C8. > > > > Please tell me if there's anything I've missed to address. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org>wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:57:43PM -0700, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > >> > Khaled, you are referring to a specific style of writing the Koran. > >> There > >> > are several others, which Unicode should be able to represent. > >> > >> I’m not sure I follow here, if you think there should be a way to > >> differentiate between two forms of prolongation mark (aka Quranic > >> Madda), something I have never seen but i’m open to learn something new, > >> then a new code point should be encoded, instead of abusing a Hamza (aka > >> the other Madda) that has an incompatible normalization behaviour in > >> Unicode. > >> > >> And you ignored my other point. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Khaled > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:26:15PM -0700, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > >> > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Khaled Hosny < > >> khaledho...@eglug.org> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Furthermore, <alef,quranic madda> ≠ <alef with madda above> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Why? > >> > > > >> > > Because every Mushaf printed in Egypt (and most of the Arabic world) > >> > > since 1919[1] has a note at the end of Madda description stating that > >> “… > >> > > and this mark should not be used to indicate an omitted Alef > >> after[sic] > >> > > a written Alef, as in آمنوا, that were mistakingly put in many > >> > > Mushafs …”, which to me is a very frank indication that the two marks > >> > > are not the same thing. > >> > > > >> > > Also a vowel mark (which the Quranic Madda is) should not “blend” with > >> > > its base letter, the same way that U+06C7 is not canonically > >> equivalent > >> > > to <U+0648,U+064F> etc. > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Khaled > >> > > > >> > > 1. The date of first Mushaf printed by Al-Azhar where most of the > >> > > Quranic annotation marks were formalized and standardized. > >> > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list HarfBuzz@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz