Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 18:33:33 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew - Vav Holam"

    On 29/07/2003 12:23, John Hudson wrote:

    > In this case, there are two encoding preferences with related display
    > preferences. One preference preserves and displays a distinction, and
    > one preference removes and hides a distinction. I prefer the former,
    > and various contributors have explained why it is a good idea to
    > preserve the distinction. Jony doesn't seem to be interested in the
    > distinction. Fonts can cater to both, so it seems to me that the main
    > impact is in comparing texts that preserve the distinction with those
    > that don't.

    OK, so we could have it that for the vowel sound the sequence holam-vav
    is the preferred encoding, but vav-holam is a less preferred
    alternative. That would be analogous to preferring in German or
    accented upper case in French, but accepting ss or unaccented capitals
    as a less preferred alternative which may be encountered in some texts.
    But would that meet SII's criteria? If not, it would be like a refusal
    to allow or accented upper case in Unicode because users had got used
    to not having them available on older computers.

    >> An even more clever font would then have the option of detecting
    >> which vav-holam sequences are actually the vowel and displaying
    >> accordingly, thus meeting the objection that the visual display
    >> should depend on the font etc rather than on the choice of otherwise
    >> equivalent encodings.
    > Fonts don't get that clever.

    Probably not. Do they have any option to set a flag like "the last
    character was a vowel" which can then be tested when the next character
    is painted? If so there is a chance of detecting this efficiently
    without having to be too clever.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:06:41 EDT