🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2739@husc6.UUCP> corelib@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (core library) writes:
>In fact, a Persian alphabet would be easier to implement than an
>English one (in terms of size) because there are 52 letters in the
>Enlish language:  capitals and lower case.  These have to be specified
>by the writer, while in Persian, the shape (or, loosely, case) of each
>letter is absolutely determined by whether it has a connecting letter
>or space before or after it.  

There are three forms of each letter, designed for the beginning of a word,
for the end of a word, and for within a word, right? I think the same is
true for Arabic. This seems similar to Latin hand-writing, in that there
are various ways to connect adjacent letters. I would like to know: Is it
ever acceptable to write a Persian word using only one of the three forms
(LIKE IT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO WRITE ENGLISH WORDS IN UPPERCASE ONLY), or
are the form rules mandatory (in the sense any aspect of a language can be
"mandatory")?

If the codes for different forms are the same, then the typography will
have to depend on context, so there has to be three font bitmaps, or types
on a printing wheel/chain, and a neat little algorithm instead of a 1-1
mapping for translating character codes into font table indices. I'm not
arguing against the solution, just pointing out some extra problems.

This leads me to another question: Which form is used in a Persian word
consisting of only one letter?
-- 
Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden
Phone: +46 18 183170
UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)