Re: Biblical Hebrew

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 06:03:29 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)"

    At 04:22 -0500 2003-06-27, wrote:

    >In discussing these issues among Biblical Hebrew implementers,
    >content providers and users, I have had to explain repeatedly why
    >UTC doesn't want to consider this. It is completely obvious to them
    >that this is the right solution. Even on explaining the impact on
    >normalization, the response is that there is no impact since
    >implementations and content using Unicode do not yet exist.

    Indeed, but the UTC doesn't want to change the normalization stuff
    even where there are obvious errors, for philosophic reasons, I
    suppose. I mean who are all the implementors who depend on these
    tables? Often Unicoders have claimed "existing implementations" even
    where none can be shown to exist. Now Ken tempts us with:

    "This is just one more in the accumulating pile of little problems in
    the decompositions locked down by normalization that will eventually
    result in the committee going "Spaaannggg!" and agreeing to publish
    and maintain a separate, corrected list of equivalences "As She
    Oughta Been" which are not constrained by the formal stability
    guarantees of UAX #15 normalization forms."

    I'd like to understand how deprecating a character and adding a
    duplicate one with the right properties differs from deprecating a
    version of UAX #15 in favour of an Oughta-Been table.


    >I think it would be better to create a new character for this purpose than
    >to use ZWJ in yet another way.

    I suppose CGJ is tempting.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 06:38:46 EDT