Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

From: Karljürgen Feuerherm (
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 09:37:43 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Plain-text search algorithms: normalization, decomposition, case mapping, word breaks"

    (Regret I hadn't yet read this post prior to my last post)

    Peter said, in reponse to Ken:

    > Why is it a kludge to insert some cc=0 control character into the text for
    > the sole purpose of preventing reordering during canonical ordering of two
    > combining marks that do interact typographically and so should but
    > nevertheless do not have the same combining class; and, moreover, to do so
    > using a control character that was not created for that purpose?
    > The answer seems so obvious, I wouldn't know how to begin responding.
    > And the fact that it achieves some desired effect has no bearing on being
    > described as a kludge -- every kludge achieves some desired effect. If it
    > were otherwise, the given practice would never have been conceived.

    Exactly correct. I am surprised Ken posed the question.

    > If we want to insert a control character to prevent reordering under
    > canonical ordering, I think it would be preferable to create a new control
    > character for just that purpose: that would give a character that could be
    > used elsewhere for the very same purpose without needing to worry about
    > what unanticipated and undesirable effects might result by hijacking a
    > control created for some completely unrelated purpose. For instance, you
    > suggested RLM. Suppose next week we discover a very similar issue in a LTR
    > script; do we want to insert RLM to prevent mark reordering in that case?

    Very fine cases in point of what I was trying to say in more general terms.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 10:22:27 EDT