- From: r12a via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:24:30 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
> Re. ijam – this opens a much wider question: should Arabic terms be used, or should English terms be used, or a combination thereof? Indeed. See a similar comment i just left on https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/204#issuecomment-555949999 Note that we normally try to align our terminology and definitions with the Unicode glossary. According to [that definition](https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/204#issuecomment-555949999) a diacritic can include accent marks (which in Unicode may or may not be represented using combining characters). It's a definition which i always took to be applicable to all sorts of short visual marks applied to base characters, including the tashkil, but it's definitely fairly vague as to what exactly is included. I suspect that if we use the word diacritic we should use it in a vague way, but we should be more rigorous in many places where we refer to ijam and tashkil. Note, btw, that we are indeed only talking about Arabic and Persian here, so i'm not sure we need to worry about implications of Urdu etc.(?) -- GitHub Notification of comment by r12a Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/205#issuecomment-555961752 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2019 11:24:31 UTC