[HarfBuzz] The canonical ordering of hamza marks

[Khaled Hosny]

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 <khaledhosny at 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 <khaledhosny at 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.
> >