From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 10:20:57 EDT
On Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:42 PM, Jony Rosenne <email@example.com> wrote:
> I cannot agree with some of these statements. My comments are
> > Only invalid for Modern Hebrew.
> No - it is true also for Biblical Hebrew and any other. The extra
> vowel belongs to another letter, which is known to exist but isn't
Not printed but also not coded! That's the issue.
You don't have any code point assigned that means:
"implicit Hebrew letter"; I'm curious to know which letter(s)
is/are implied: if there are only a few, then may be they
could be assigned separate codepoints for each semantic
As long as this extra *implicit letter* will not be coded, there
will remain a problem with the NF forms. Some other scripts
have such "implicit" letters encoded, or "fillers". Not Hebrew...
Using a CGJ (or a new codepoint to define) to code this implicit
letter is not a bad idea, and it does not require changing any
combining class value.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 11:10:19 EDT