Re: Hebrew Vav Holam

From: Ted Hopp (
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 18:02:04 EDT

  • Next message: Ted Hopp: "Re: Hebrew Vav Holam"

    On Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:56 PM, John Cowan wrote:
    > Unicode allows any combining character to be attached to any base
    > whatsoever. However, putting a dagesh into a DEVANAGARI KA, or placing a
    > circumflex over an ARABIC MEEM, is pretty certain to cause bad rendering,
    > may screw up other text processes such as syllabication.

    From Unicode 3.2, Chapter 8 [regarding shin and sin dot]:
    "The two dots are mutually exclusive. The base letter shin can also have
    dagesh, a vowel, and other diacritics. Use of the two dots with any other
    base character is an error."

    Sometimes, doing something that's allowed can still be an error.

    > > Would FB4B continue to decompose into 05D5 05B9?
    > Yes. Normalization stability requires it.

    That's what I thought.

    > > 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
    > > don't understand it.
    > Assertions of the form "Mark X is only used with base form Y" have proven
    > be false too often in the past.

    All the more reason to avoid introducing more marks.


    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 - 18:42:40 EDT