Proposals for Arabic honorifics

[Lisa Moore]

Hello Naz,

Thank you for discussing your proposal on the unicode list.  Not all 
experts monitor that list.  That said, feel free to submit a proposal to 
"docsubmit at unicode.org". 

Look forward to seeing your proposal.


Lisa 




From:   Naz Gassiep <naz at gassiep.com>
To:     unicode at unicode.org
Date:   10/06/2015 08:50 PM
Subject:        Re: Proposals for Arabic honorifics
Sent by:        "Unicode" <unicode-bounces at unicode.org>



If there are no comments on this specific issue, could someone care to 
comment on the idea of writing a proposal that extends and existing 
proposal? Is this considered bad form, or is it OK so long as it doesn't 
unnecessarily raise conflicting proposals?
- Naz.


On 5/10/2015 6:39 PM, Naz Gassiep wrote:
> Hi all,
> We are considering writing a proposal for Arabic honorifics which are 
> missing from Unicode. There are already a few in there, notably U+FDFA 
> and U+FDFB.
>
> There are two existing proposals, L2/14-147 and L2/14-152, which each 
> propose additions. L2/14-147 proposes seventeen new characters and 
> L2/14-152 proposes a further two.
>
> There are a few other characters that are not included in these 
> proposals, and I was considering preparing a proposal of my own. I 
> will work with a team of people who are willing to contribute time to 
> this work. We are considering two options:
>
> 1. Prepare an additional proposal for the characters that were missing 
> from the existing spec and also from the two proposals mentioned above.
> 2. Prepare a collating proposal which rolls the two proposals as well 
> as the others that we feel are missing into a single proposal.
>
> Currently, we favour the second option. We would ensure that full 
> descriptions, names, character properties, and detailed examples are 
> provided for each character to substantiate its use in modern plain 
> text. We would also suggest code points in line with the existing 
> proposal L2/14-147.
>
> We don't want to step on the toes of the original submitters, Roozbeh 
> Pournader or Lateef Sagar Shaikh. We wish to be clear that we will 
> draw on their existing proposals to the maximum extent possible to 
> ensure that we do not submit a conflicting proposal, but a superset 
> proposal that incorporates their proposals as well as the additional 
> characters we have identified. We have evaluated these two, and a true 
> superset proposal is possible such that no conflicts between either 
> those two proposals or our own will materialize.
>
> Are there any issues that we may face in preparing and submitting our 
> proposal?
> Any guidance from this mailing list would be highly valued.
> Many thanks,
> - Naz.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20151006/e1a0501f/attachment.html>