From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 07:05:29 EDT
On 25/07/2003 23:24, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>This explanation makes me unhappy with CGJ.
>Ken says: "The important things are that it is a) invisible, b) a combining
>mark, and c) has combining class zero".
>And: "There is no need for an invisible base character here".
>On the contrary, to represent the text we do need an invisible base
>character for the Hiriq, representing the unwritten Yod.
>Another possibility is to encode the Yod with a complex text (in the meaning
>non plain text) control saying the Yod is invisible.
>I think it is important, whatever solution is chosen, to represent the real
>situation, rather than just a sequence of codes that happens to be able to
>produce the desired visual output.
If we are talking about introducing markup, surely the correct approach
would be to encode the word twice with separate markup, once for the
Qere form ending lamed patah yod hiriq mem and once for the Ketiv form
(probably consonants only) ending lamed mem. But I can see the need also
for a third form also distinguishable by markup, which is the form
actually seen in print, as at least some users are more concerned with
reproducing this accurately than with the underlying linguistics. But if
this principle is applied generally it does lead to further
complications, for example the need to encode "Qere without Ketiv" i.e.
words which, on the page, consist of points only with no base characters.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 08:14:42 EDT