Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew

From: John Hudson (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:08:01 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Monotonic (was Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools)"

    At 06:27 AM 7/29/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:

    >Based on the SII response, it sounds like either doing nothing (within
    >Unicode proper) or developing Ken's CGJ proposal are the leading contenders
    >at this point.

    As stated previously, I'm reasonably happy with CGJ as a re-ordering
    inhibitor *if* the invisible glyph is reliably painted so that it can be
    used in font substitution or positioning lookups. If it is not painted,
    this solution is as much of a non-starter as control characters. Seriously:
    display requires operations in glyph space, and this cannot be done if
    glyphs are not painted. Perhaps the UTC needs to clarify the definition of
    CGJ to make it explicit that this 'combining mark' should be painted and
    not treated like a control character?

    I say that I am 'reasonably happy' because I still feel sorry for the
    Biblical scholars who will need to deal with CGJ in text strings: who will
    need to remember to enter it if they don't want their marks to be reordered
    in normalisation, who will need to remember its possible impact of search
    operations, etc.

    I also feel sorry for all the Hebrew font developers who are going to have
    to update their fonts, but that was likely whatever the solution.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
    interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
    surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
    journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
    media cannibalism.
                             - Emma Brockes, at the EU summit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 15:08:12 EDT