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

From: Ted Hopp (
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:22:55 EDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"

    On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:39 PM, Kent Karlsson wrote:
    > Ted Hopp wrote:
    > > When I first
    > > saw it, I had assumed that FB4B was supposed to be used for
    > > kholam male (and that's what we use it for in our code).
    > FB4B;HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM;Lo;0;R;05D5 05B9;;;;N;;;;;
    > FB4B is *canonically* equivalent to <05D5, 05B9>, so you cannot
    > expect a distinction to be made when all involved characters are
    > supported. Indeed, FB4B will be normalised to <05D5, 05B9>
    > in all Unicode normal forms, since FB4B is composition excluded.

    Yes, we were aware of that. We use FB4B strictly internally and never in a
    string that might get normalized. I think of it as a kind of markup code for


    Ted Hopp, Ph.D.
    ZigZag, Inc.

    newSLATE is your personal learning workspace
       ...on the web at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:57:59 EDT