Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 06:38:59 EDT

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Re: Putting Unicode to Work"

    On 23/07/2003 03:20, Paul Nelson (TYPOGRAPHY) wrote:

    >Please look at the definition of GCJ and other such characters.
    >Understand the differences between CGJ and ZWJ/ZWNJ.
    >This discussion is very disturbing to me because after reading through
    >the L2 document register it is unclear what is the difference between
    >GCJ and ZWJ use.
    >The fact that you desire a control character to not be treated as such
    >greatly concerns me. This really feels like people are trying to figure
    >out any way to twist existing constructs to avoid fixing the
    >normalization weights. I am alarmed from the implications of putting
    >control characters in place to somehow subvert the normalization.
    >In an ideal world we would simply correct these values. However, it has
    >been strongly communicated by the UTC that this cannot be done without
    >jeoparizing stability agreements with IETF. Peter Constable has posted a
    >document in the register on this topic that suggests a duplication of
    >characters as a solution.
    >Can we please have this topic put on the agenda for the next meeting of
    >the UTC?
    I support the proposal that UTC discuss this matter ASAP. But I have a
    strong body of evidence from Jewish and other scholars and Hebrew users
    that the proposal to assign separate characters for biblical Hebrew from
    modern Hebrew is completely unacceptable.

    As for the details of CGJ, please tell me where I can find a detailed
    definition, and where it is specifically stated that a *rendering
    engine* is obliged to process this *internally* as a control character -
    and what precisely it is supposed to do with it if it does. I am now
    wondering if anyone understands what this character is supposed to be or
    do. If this is not clearly defined anywhere, perhaps UTC needs to write
    a clear definition. At least Ken Whistler seems to think that it is
    appropriate for this use. Meanwhile, if despite this CGJ is not in fact
    appropriate for this function, maybe we should propose a new character
    which does have the appropriate properties.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 07:28:24 EDT