From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 16:01:08 EDT
On 30/07/2003 12:07, John Cowan wrote:
>When you say "it", which glyph do you mean? I would like a description
>of what the two glyphs look like and how they are to be distinguished,
See the reference glyph for U+FB4B. One form looks like this with the
dot above further to the left, the other like it with the dot a little
further to the right. This glyph with the centred dot is a compromise
between the two.
>>the marks follow the base character.
>This is a universal Unicode rule, and may get us into trouble someday when
>we run into a script that attaches vowel marks to the following consonant.
>(Still worse, if it does so in some uses but not others: "A Elbereth
>Gilthoniel" won't be very processable if it must be encoded "A Lebrethe
I think that someday is today! Some Hebrew vowel marks are attached to
the consonant which logically follows. This applies in several cases in
Hebrew orthography, holam above the right of holam and alef, holam
sometimes merging with a following shin dot, and furtive patah which is
encoded following the base character (always word final) but pronounced
One way round the problem, in this specific case and more generally, is
to treat the vowel marks as combined with the preceding base character
even if graphically they are displaced on to the following character.
(At least, in Hebrew they don't modify the shape of the following
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 16:57:09 EDT