Re: Hebrew Vav Holam

From: Ted Hopp (
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:00:26 EDT

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

    On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:12 PM, wrote:
    > Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
    > > I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
    > be
    > > determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
    > >
    > > 05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R;<compat> 05D5 05B9;;;;N;;;;;
    > I don't understand at all why you'd want to encode a
    > compatibility-decomposable character. If it's the same as something else,
    > then this isn't needed. If it's really and truly distinct, then encode it
    > as a distinct character, period.
    > It seems that the only reason you'd have for suggesting something with a
    > compatibility decomposition is that you want to encode the combination vav
    > + right-holam = holam male. But there's absolutely no reason why the holam
    > male cannot be encoded as a sequence. This happens all the time for lots
    > languages. Precomposed combinations should not be added any more for
    > than any other script or language.

    My lack of Unicode expertise is showing, I'm afraid. I thought that a
    compatibility decomposition was a way to make future text that used the new
    character interoperate (if that's the right word) with existing text.
    Encoding a distinct character is fine with me.

    > I will plan on preparing a proposal for a new right-holam character (with
    > some agreeable name) sometime in the next few months, unless someone else
    > gets to it first (I likely won't be able to do so before the August UTC
    > meeting).

    So would this new right-holam character be a combining character? If so, its
    use should be highly restricted, similar to what is done with shin dot and
    sin dot. Applying a right-holam character to anything other than a bare vav
    should be considered an error (no other combining marks should be allowed,
    including HEBREW ACCENT characters). Would FB4B continue to decompose into
    05D5 05B9?

    It seems to me that either I'm misinterpreting things, or most people in
    this discussion would prefer a new combining character to a new base
    character. If this is so, I'd appreciate an explanation of why, because I
    don't understand it.


    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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:45:36 EDT