Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels

Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 03:43:07 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels"

    Ken Whistler wrote on 06/25/2003 05:29:59 PM:

    > > The point is that hiriq before patah is *not*
    > > canonically equivalent to patah before hiriq,
    > This is true.
    > > except in the erroneous
    > > assumption of the Unicode Standard: the order of vowels makes words
    > > different and mean different things.
    > This is not.

    Ken, I think you're reading John differently than he intended: the Unicode
    character sequences < hiriq, patah > and < patah, hiriq > *are*
    canonically equivalent, but the requirements for Biblical Hebrew are that
    alternate visual orders would correspond to different vocalizations, and
    thus the visual ordering of these does matter semantically, and therefore
    the encoded orders should *not* be canonically equivalent.

    > The current situation is not optimal for implementations, nor
    > does canonically ordered text follow traditional preferences
    > for spelling order -- that we can agree on. But I think the
    > claims of inadequacy for the representation or rendering
    > of Biblical Hebrew text are overblown.

    The serious problem is that the writing distinctions that matter cannot
    currently be reliably represented, as they are not preserved under
    canonical ordering / normalization. This is all just a rehash of
    discussions we had on this list back in December, at which time it was
    acknowledged that this was the case, and that this was a problem.

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 04:32:53 EDT