From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 17:44:31 EDT
On 22/07/2003 13:59, John Hudson wrote:
> At 04:36 AM 7/22/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> These both explain the problem in some detail. They also propose
>> alternative combining classes for the Hebrew vowels without actually
>> proposing that the existing Unicode definitions should be changed.
>
>
> It should be noted that the alternative combining classes proposed in
> this document are for developers who want to do custom normalisation
> in a controlled text processing environment, with all the expected
> caveats about the classes being non-standard. A solution that works
> flawlessly to both encode and render Biblical Hebrew text is going to
> take a while (the proposed control character insertion model breaks
> current rendering implementations -- not sure why, but I'm looking
> into it). In the meantime, we have users who want to work with a
> typeface that can correctly render the entire Biblia Hebraica text in
> current apps, and developers who want to do normalisation in search
> queries in their software. The alternative combining classes are a
> hack that permits this while we await a definitive encoding solution
> from the UTC and updates to rendering implementations.
>
> John Hudson
>
> Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
> Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
>
>
And then if (and I know it's a big if) the UTC agrees in principle to
allow a change to these combining classes, would the custom values that
you have listed there be suitable for a first draft proposal for new
combining classes?
-- Peter Kirk peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 18:57:37 EDT