https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39297
--- Comment #13 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru --- (In reply to Hin-Tak Leung from comment #12)
It depends on what you think is most useful part of the table. Since apparently that's Arabic alphabet then it's a good solution, if you need something else then it's worth probably at least mention that.
The Fontvalidator already tests for arabic code page 1256, which I believe is iso 8859-6, in bit 6. Bit 61 is something else. This is a tool for testing compliance to an iso specification 14496-22 (the open type format), so nothing less than exact match is good enough.
'useful' and '30% incompatible' isn't good enough, when testing for compliance to an iso standard. '30% incompatible' is not compatible, as far as standard compliance is concerned.
If you could provide a reference to the code page table compatible with the format of unicode.org tables or the one that could be easily adapted that would be great.