Hebrew Vav Holam

From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:29:12 EDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Hebrew Vav Holam"


    We have here one character sequence with two alternate renditions: the
    common rendition, in which they are the same, and a distinguished rendition
    which uses two separate glyphs for the separate meanings.

    On paper, which is two-dimensional, it is a Vav with a Holam point somewhere
    above it. Unicode decided that in the encoding, which is one-dimensional,
    the marks follow the base character.

    Any solution should accommodate both kinds of users and both renditions.

    Solution: Suggestions, please.


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
    > [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hopp
    > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:43 PM
    > To: unicode@unicode.org; Joan_Wardell@sil.org
    > Subject: SPAM: Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem
    > On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:57 AM, Joan_Wardell@sil.org wrote:
    > > 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.)
    > One of the key points some of us are trying to make is that
    > vav with kholam khaser is a different mark on the page than a
    > kholam male. Different semantics AND different appearance,
    > but no separate Unicode encoding. What more do we need?
    > Besides, what's all this that I keep reading about Unicode
    > encodes characters, not glyphs? From Chapter 1: "[T]he
    > standard defines how characters are interpreted, not how
    > glyphs are rendered." The "code what you see" approach, while
    > probably the reality of Unicode, seems somewhat contrary to
    > this statement of principle.
    > > 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.
    > Yes, indeed. Nothing like an encoding that can't be decoded. :)
    > Ted
    > Ted Hopp, Ph.D.
    > ZigZag, Inc.
    > ted@newSLATE.com
    > +1-301-990-7453
    > newSLATE is your personal learning workspace
    > ...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:41:05 EDT