From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 17:49:29 EDT
Joan_Wardell@sil.org scripsit:
> If the "expected test results" are bad data, it shouldn't matter then
> if it is consistent. Are you saying that somewhere there are lots
> of people who have worked very hard to implement Hebrew as it is
> currently described in Unicode 3 and they would have to "start over" if
> we changed the canonical order? And the biggest fear is that the data
> today won't be consistent with the data in the new order? My point
> is that there *is* no data today, because anyone who has attempted
> to produce biblical Hebrew data in the current canonical order would
> have stopped and said "Wait a minute! This won't work".
The reason not to change has nothing to do with Hebrew data and everything
to do with maintaining stability. Please review the recent archives.
> I don't think we can use it to fix meteg, a mark which occurs in
> three different positions around a low vowel, yet is canonically ordered
> before the shin/sin dots! Will we put one CGJ on the right to indicate
> a right meteg and one on the left to indicate a left meteg?
No, something different is needed here. We may need more metegs.
> There are many other examples of problems with the current
> canonical order.
Please specify them! We can't find solutiosn for problems that we don't
know about.
> The apparent simplest solution to all the problems is to correct the
> canonical order.
It's only *apparently* the simplest solution.
-- With techies, I've generally found John Cowan If your arguments lose the first round http://www.reutershealth.com Make it rhyme, make it scan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Then you generally can jcowan@reutershealth.com Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 18:28:36 EDT