Proposals for Arabic honorifics
lisam at us.ibm.com
Tue Oct 6 23:02:32 CDT 2015
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.
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?
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
> Any guidance from this mailing list would be highly valued.
> Many thanks,
> - Naz.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode