From: Ted Hopp (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:18:54 EDT
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:03 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> We do not encode any HEBREW VOWELs. We encode LETTERs and combining marks.
I agree with the "do not" if it's descriptive of current practice. If it's
prescriptive, I'd have to ask why. (And please don't say "stability policy"!
There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male and
shuruq. Neither one is encoded in Unicode. Neither one is a Hebrew letter
(in the traditional sense) nor is either a combining mark. I thought some
new nomenclature was in order. Since there are general category Lo code
points with names like LAO VOWEL SIGN AA [0EB0], I went with that. (Maybe I
shouldn't have dropped the "SIGN".)
It seems wrong to be calling a base character a HEBREW MARK. It also seems a
little odd to be calling a Hebrew vowel a HEBREW LETTER when every other
HEBREW LETTER is a consonant. But if that's what convention requires....
Ted Hopp, Ph.D.
newSLATE is your personal learning workspace
...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:07:54 EDT