4 ms·
The author of the article mentions that Naskh does not contain all the letters that Nastaliq has, so if someone types an Urdu text in Naskh it would not have th
by mchaver 12y ago
The author of the article mentions that Naskh does not contain all the letters that Nastaliq has, so if someone types an Urdu text in Naskh it would not have the same underlying Unicode if they had typed it in Nastaliq. Correct me if this is wrong.
My assumption is that not all OSes will adopt Nastaliq simultaneously. So assume that the website is storing data in complete coding for Nastaliq and they want to send it to a device that cannot render Nastaliq so the Unicode should be converted so it is properly renderable in Naskh.
The other half is just to make one's Urdu language web experience completely in Nastaliq. Even unimportant stuff written in Roman Urdu and then converted to Nastaliq might help promote the use of Nastaliq.
- jpatokal 12y agoYes, that's wrong. The author was talking about that fact that Urdu has more letters than standard Arabic, mostly additional diacritics etc, which makes entering it with an Arabic keypad/keyboard painful. Both Naskh and Nastaliq can be encoded using the Arabic block in Unicode, it's just that Nastaliq's vertically stacking nature makes it difficult to deal with in computer systems that expect clean rows of text.
- mchaver 12y agoOk, I went back over and I did misread that part of the article. The problem is not as complicated as I thought, but that vertical stacking is definitely a challenging problem to handle.