It's a mistake in the 8859-8.TXT table, apparently inherited from the
Unicode 1.0 table. (cf. TUS 1.0, p. 475).
The First CD for the revision of ISO/IEC 8859-8 (SC2 N2703,
And unless that was changed subsequently before publication
(which I doubt), the Unicode mapping table is incorrect and should be
corrected to show the same value as for 8859-1 at 0xAF.
> I have a question about the official mapping between ISO 8859-8
> (Latin/Hebrew) and ISO 10646-1:
> In <ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-1.TXT> we find
> as we expect
> 0xAF 0x00AF # MACRON
> but <ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-8.TXT> says
> 0xAF 0x203E # OVERLINE
> This looks a little bit suspicious, given that both characters look
> practically identical. Could this be an error in the file on the
> ftp.unicode.org server, or is this according to the new ISO 8859-8:1997
> really the correct character there and not MACRON? If it is really
> OVERLINE in Latin/Hebrew, is there some deeper reason?
> Slightly puzzled ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:35 EDT