Beauty / Readabiliy

Muṣḥaf Muscat (top) and ʿUṯmān Ṭaha (bottom) look better than the KFE (middle),
but are not always easier to read.

The main problem I see in the Amīriyya set KFE after rāʾ/zai and waw, and before kaf within words. Often (not always) there is too big a space within words.

Tom Milo ‒ mushafmuscat.om ‒ mushaf oman

God news about Tom Milos mushafmuscat.om
Thomas Milo analysed the best examples of high Ottoman calli­graphy = court calli­graphy, syn­thesized its Grammar (term coined by him) ‒ ignoring all other (lesser) Ottoman calli­graphers.
He and his team succeded in aping human writing: first the stroke, then the dots, at last the addi­tional signs. Like the writers of old, the signs of each category have to be in the right order, but they don't have to be exactely above resp. below the charac­ter that they modify.
In Kein Standard I critisized a word in 4:4, where Milo placed a madda above a con­sonant, al­though according to G24 (followed strictly by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha) madda can only sit above a vowel ‒ šadda "lengthening" con­sonants.
Today I looked at 4:4 again and low and behold, the wrongly placed (blue) madda was moved to its proper place:

Thomas Milo had to be flexible all the time. In his view dots belong to letters in­cluding its con­nection to the next resp. its tail signaling: End Letter. But the Omanis thought that the dots belong to the "heart" of the letter, the tooth resp. the defining part.
Milo wanted staked letter­groups, Omanis prefered base­line letters with a clear right-to-left order. Milo agreed to half way solutions.
His elektronic Muṣḥaf is marvellous!
But Oman never had it printed. A printed, a bound codex does not exist.
Instead a Muṣḥaf ʿOmān was calli­graphed by Qadusi and printed ‒ by the way not as strictly simpli­fied as ʿUṯmān Ṭaha, hardly less Ottoman than Milo's electronic muṣḥaf.