Drafting "Font and Typographical Considerations"

[shervinafshar]

Najib started a draft for the topic keyword "Font and Typographical Considerations" here.

We can use this issue for discussing this section.

[ntounsi]

Hi, Added some updates. It is yet a rough draft. Trying to enhance it with quotations, references and more examples. May be all is not relevant to the section (font-and-typography) of the document.

[behnam]

Najib's HTML version is at http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/Font-and-Typographical-considerations.html (or .pdf)

[r12a]

Everyone to read and comment on the PR commit, see https://github.com/w3c/alreq/pull/42

[shervinafshar]

I reviewed the draft for this section and have few comments:

• Naskh being "the standard script for the Arabic and Muslim world" is highly debatable;
• Kufi was not always the script for use in architecture; it was used for Quran during Umayyads (661-749);
• It might be more relevant not to fall for Kufi vs. Naskh and briefly mention the topics of two styles as mugavvar wa mudawar (curved and rounded) vs. mabsūt wa mustagīm (elongated and straight-angeled);
• Also, Ibn Muqla system of measurement of Arabic script is concise and useful and can be visualized in few illustrations; i.e. size of Nokte, height of Alif, circle (Dairah);
• It's prefer to avoid using existing fonts for script samples and use actual calligraphic examples;
• Ta'liq and Nastaliq font samples look exactly the same;
• "Farissi" should be corrected to either "Farsi" or "Persian";
• "Kufi" script was not actually from Kufa.

[ntounsi]

Hi Shervin,

Thank for your comments. See inline

On 5/3/16 09:55, Shervin Afshar wrote:

I reviewed the draft for this section and have few comments:

• Naskh being "the standard script for the Arabic and Muslim world" is highly debatable;

Well, it's subject to debate. I said almost all Arabic and Muslim world. What I would like to say, is that Naskh type of script is the most used in schools, administration, books, etc. Perhaps because it is more readable. Anyway, it is a comment, thus removable.

• Kufi was not always the script for use in architecture;

Yes.

• it was used for Quran during Umayyads (661-749);
• It might be more relevant not to fall for Kufi vs. Naskh

It is rather Naskh vs. Kufi-like styles. There are other comparison topics.

• and briefly mention the topics of two styles as /mugavvar wa mudawar/ (curved and rounded) vs. /mabsūt wa mustagīm/ (elongated and straight-angeled);

Those are also topics to consider. I'll look at those style in detail and then mention them.

• Also, Ibn Muqla system of measurement of Arabic script is concise and useful and can be visualized in few illustrations; i.e. size of Nokte, height of Alif, circle (Dairah);

OK.

• It's prefer to avoid using existing fonts for script samples and use actual calligraphic examples;

I choosed to use my own samples (not to copy from elsewhere). Sure, it doesn't represent all the calligraphic.

• Ta'liq and Nastaliq font samples look exactly the same;
• "Farissi" should be corrected to either "Farsi" or "Persian";
• "Kufi" script was not actually from Kufa.

Yes.

Thank you for your positive comments, I'll take them into account, and welcome any other suggestions.

In fact, I started from some references, and then I found other interesting reference thatclarify some points.

Talk to you soon.

Najib

[behnam]

Based on discussion about https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/117, it came up that we can address that question in the Font section in ALReq, noting that "proportional fonts" are generally preferred to "monospace fonts".

[behnam]

Something to consider during the review of this section: https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/125