Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 10:55:02 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Allan: "Re: U+23D0 VERTICAL LINE EXTENSION"

    On 23/07/2003 06:48, wrote:

    >There's a concern that it may not be a good idea for a developer to
    >implement support for CGJ just in relation to Hebrew, and that the proposed
    >usage of CGJ for Hebrew is quite distinct from it's more general uses.
    >Doing half a job may cost more in the end, and one has to consider whether
    >one's implementation, intended for Hebrew, has had any unexpected effects
    >on one's implementations of other scripts.
    >- Peter
    >Peter Constable
    >Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    >7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    >Tel: +1 972 708 7485
    Peter C, I guess that when you wrote this you had not yet seen my
    posting pointing out that in Unicode 4.0 developers are obliged to
    "implement" CGJ, quite apart from Hebrew, as a "default ignorable
    character", and that that required default behaviour is adequate, at
    least as a good approximation, for rendering of Hebrew according to the
    CGJ proposal. So, basically, there is no special CGJ support required
    beyond general Unicode conformance.

    I have been told off list that "Use of the CGJ is not acceptable. A host
    of people will fight that proposal as it sets some very bad precidence."
    But I have not seen any evidence of this; apart from some implementation
    related concerns, I have seen arguments against it only from Paul Nelson
    and Peter C. I would be very glad to hear from some of that host of
    people, and perhaps to help answer their concerns. But I would be very
    surprised if that host is actually as large as the host of those who are
    already fighting against the proposal to define separate vowels for
    biblical Hebrew.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 11:37:28 EDT