Open xfq opened 11 months ago
r12a
commented
11 months ago The alreq doc is focused on the Arabic and Persian languages, so Kano writing style is not particularly relevant. I don't think the list of styles already there is intended to be exhaustive – just informative examples. So i'm not convinced (yet) that we need to add the Kano style to the list.
xfq
commented
11 months ago The current document title is "Text Layout Requirements for the Arabic Script", and we might want to change it to something like "Text Layout Requirements for Modern Standard Arabic and Persian" if we are going to restrict the scope of the document.
ntounsi
commented
11 months ago "The Ajami script is a set of Arabic alphabets and vowels used as a system for writing the texts of African languages." (Wikipedia (ar) (en). I don't object to the change of the title, but to my understading, Alreq is about "layout of languages [...] that use the Arabic script". Unless I'm missing something, the document should apply to all of them (almost?). If there are differences somewhere, they can be mentioned in the text, for example like here about bidi category of Indic digits of Arabic vs Persian.
r12a
commented
11 months ago hi Najib. Since the point, several years ago now, where we left off writing the document we have been adding gap analysis documents for other languages, including Kashmiri and Uighur, and soon to be Urdu. These, of course, are very different in terms of the character repertoire and the way the orthography works. So i think it is best to clearly indicate what is currently covered by the LReq doc – ie. Arabic & Persian information – to avoid confusion.
xfq
commented
11 months ago WG resolution: https://www.w3.org/2023/12/07-i18n-minutes.html#r01
https://www.w3.org/International/alreq/#h_writing_styles
Comparing this section with the proposed generic font families, kano is not currently mentioned in alreq. Should we consider documenting the requirements of the ajami script?