Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem

Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 11:57:57 EDT

  • Next message: Ted Hopp: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"


    I agree 100% with your description of the characters that have not been
    encoded in Unicode. There are certainly marks and consonants that mean two
    completely different things, as you have so accurately described. But there
    are two approaches to encoding. There is "Code what you see" and "Code what
    is meant". In your analysis and in the way SIL encoded the original SIL
    Ezra font, we went with "Code what is meant". This means that we have two
    shevas (one pronounced and one silent), a holemwaw character and a shureq
    character. Unicode, on the other hand, is totally "Code what you see". It
    is attempting to make no analysis of the marks on the page. If there is a
    mark, code it. If it is identical to another mark, then it gets the same
    codepoint. (Of course, there are exceptions, but this is the general rule.)

    So with Unicode, there is no way to separate even vowels and consonants,
    since a waw in a shureq, a holem-waw, and just a plain waw will always be
    encoded the same. Some of us are trying to make this approach usable by
    allowing at least a holem-waw to be distinguished from waw holem, by
    placing the holem first.

    For the encoders, it is fairly straight-forward. For the people trying to
    actually use the encoding, it's going to take a lot of context to determine
    what you've got.

    Joan Wardell

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:25:11 EDT