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

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 10:44:50 EDT

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

    At 09:24 -0400 2003-06-27, John Cowan wrote:
    >Michael Everson scripsit:
    >> So, you're saying, no one has asked IETF whether or not they would be
    >> able to countenance a dozen or so changes for unimplemented things
    >> like biblical accents.
    >The IETF has an explicit contract with Unicode: "We'
    >ll use your normalization algorithm if you promise NEVER, NEVER to change
    >the normalization status of a single character." Unicode has already
    >broken that promise four times, so its credibility is shaky. 14 new
    >changes is indeed a radical change from this point of view, and would
    >IMO break the promise beyond repair.

    14 new changes of characters which have probably NEVER been used on
    the internet so far. Curse the lot of you for ostriches if you don't
    even talk to the IETF about this.

    Explain to me what will break if some METEG gets shifted right from left.

    >Unfortunately, you don't understand what is "radical" here. Unicode
    >could have done all sorts of things -- normalized simplified characters
    >into traditional ones, even -- and W3C would probably have swallowed it.
    >What it can't swallow is a lack of stability in Unicode's commitments.
    >I'm on the XML Core WG and the I18N Interest Group, so I'm not talking
    >out of my ass here.

    No, but you're not making a technical argument, either.

    >So far I have not heard any compelling objections to CGJ except that
    >invisible characters are fuggly.

    And that it is a stupider technical fix than actually making a technical fix.

    > > You could explain the problem with these Hebrew accents, and ask them
    > > to help by accepting a change. Shivering in a cave for fear of the
    > > monsters outside isn't going to get anyone anywhere. People of good
    > > will can often come to enlightened consensus.
    >Not when their core values -- correctness vs. stability -- are made to
    >be at odds.

    And shifting a METEG in a normalization versioning is going to cause
    what technical problem?

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 11:34:20 EDT