Hi Steven , yes you are right, sorry i am a bit confused.
i checked again and the correct one is "zhe"/U+698. It seems the word is in the range but my customer says it shouldn't be. I think problem occurs because "zhe" is a Persian letter outside the Arabic alphabet. In farsi alphabet this letter is not after the "س" letter but it's unicode is bigger than "س" letter's and the searcher works with unicodes. Esra Steven A Rowe wrote: > > Hi Esra, > > You are *still* incorrectly referring to the glyph with three dots over > it: > > On 05/02/2008 at 12:18 PM, esra wrote: >> yes the correct one is "ژ "/"ze"/U+632. > > "ژ" is *not* "ze"/U+632 - it is "zhe"/U+698. > > Have you increased the font size? Can you see the difference between > these two?: > > "ژ"/"zhe"/U+698 > "ز"/"ze"/U+632 > >> my problem is when i do search for "د-ژ" range. The result >> is "ساب ووفر" and this word's first letter is "س" and it's unicode is >> "U+633" and it is not in the in the [ U+062F - U+0632 ] range. > > Like I keep saying, in the above description, you're using the glyph > "ژ"/"zhe"/U+698, while calling at the same time incorrectly referring to > it as "ze"/U+632. > > I don't mean to continually bang on about this - if you're *sure* that > when you search, you're using the character represented by the glyph with > one dot (and not three), i.e. "ز"/"ze"/U+632, then the problem lies > elsewhere. > > Steve > > On 05/02/2008 at 12:18 PM, esra wrote: >> yes the correct one is "ژ "/"ze"/U+632. >> >> my problem is when i do search for " د-ژ" range. The result >> is ""ساب ووفر >> " and this word's first letter is "س " and it's unicode is >> "U+633" and it >> is not in the in the [ U+062F - U+0632 ] range. >> >> am i wrong? >> >> Esra >> >> Steven A Rowe wrote: >> > >> > Hi Esra, >> > >> > I still think you're wrong :). >> > >> > On 05/02/2008 at 9:31 AM, esra wrote: >> > > > ژ = U+632 >> > >> > According to the website you linked to, the above character, which has >> > three dots over it, is named "zhe", and its Unicode code point is >> > U+698. (I had to increase the font size to see the three dots.) >> > >> > I think you are confusing "ژ"/"zhe"/U+698 with the letter >> > "ز"/"ze"/U+632, which has just one dot over it. >> > >> > Unless you were mistaken in all of your emails when you included the >> > character "ژ"/"zhe" instead of "ز"/"ze", then what I said in my >> > previous email still stands: there is no problem here. >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > On 05/02/2008 at 9:31 AM, esra wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Steven, >> > > >> > > sorry i made a mistake. unicodes are like this: >> > > >> > > > د=U+62F >> > > > ژ = U+632 >> > > > and the first letter of "ساب ووفر " is س = U+633 >> > > >> > > you can also check them here >> > > > http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/persian-alphabet.html >> > > >> > > Esra >> > > >> > > >> > > Steven A Rowe wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Esra, >> > > > >> > > > Going back to the original problem statement, I see something that >> > > > looks illogical to me - please correct me if I'm wrong: >> > > > >> > > > On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:21 AM, esra wrote: >> > > > > i am using lucene's "IndexSearcher" to search the given xml by >> > > > > keyword which contains farsi information. >> > > > > while searching i use ranges like >> > > > > >> > > > > آ-ث | ج-خ | د-ژ | س-ظ | ع-ق | ک-ل | م-ی >> > > > > >> > > > > when i do search for "د-ژ" range the results are wrong , they >> > > > > are the results of " س-ظ "range. >> > > > > >> > > > > for example when i do search for "د-ژ" one of the the results is >> > > > > "ساب ووفر", this result also shown on the " س-ظ " range's result >> > > > > list which is the corret range. >> > > > > >> > > > > As IndexSearcher use "compareTo" method and this method uses >> > > > > unicodes for comparing, i found the unicodes of the characters. >> > > > > >> > > > > د=U+62F >> > > > > ژ = U+698 >> > > > > and the first letter of "ساب ووفر " is س = U+633 >> > > > >> > > > It appears to me that *both* the "د-ژ" range [ U+062F - U+0698 ] >> and >> > > > the "س-ظ" range [ U+0633 - U+0638 ] contain the first letter of >> "ساب >> > > > ووفر", which is "س" = U+0633. >> > > > >> > > > You stated that U+0633 should be contained in the [ U+0633 - U+0638 >> ] >> > > > range - I agree - but why do you think U+0633 should not be >> contained >> > > > in the [ U+062F - U+0698 ] range? >> > > > >> > > > In other words, it looks to me like your problem is not a problem >> at >> > > > all. >> > > > >> > > > Steve >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > -- View this message in context: >> > > >> http://www.nabble.com/lucene-farsi-problem-tp16977096p17019498 > .html Sent >> > from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To >> > unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For >> > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/lucene-farsi-problem-tp16977096p17022861.html > Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/lucene-farsi-problem-tp16977096p17023557.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
