From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 19:13:22 EDT
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
> >No, I think ZWJ may be exactly the way to go here.
> ><consonant, holam, (accent), ZWJ, alef/vav> for making a 'ligature'
> >(of sorts, in a technical sence) where the holam is displayed on the
> >alef or vav. Without the ZWJ, the holam would be displayed on the
> ><consonant> to which it logically belongs. (alef and vav are base
> >characters, so the ZWJ is not breaking any combining sequence here.)
> This is an interesting idea, but I don't think it quite works. The
> decision whether to shift holams on to a following alef or vav is not
> something to be decided on a per occurrence basis
Then why do you and others propose to add a new character?
> but enforced on all
> renderers. Rather, it is a rendering decision which should be applied
> consistently, depending on context, through a whole document
> or style.
> So it is not something to be encoded, but something which
> should depend
> on the font etc.
But you are saying that current mechanisms that try to be that
"smart" sometimes fail.
> The distinction which does need to be encoded is between
> holam male and
> vav followed by holam,
Which my proposal trivially acheives:
vav-holam: <vav, holam>
some consonant followed by holam male: <[consonant], holam, ZWJ, vav>
> as many (though not all) renderers
> want to make
> this distinction but they can only do so if there is an encoding
> difference. It would certainly be an option to encode holam
> male as vav
> - ZWJ - holam
This breaks the combining sequence, and is therefore a non-option.
> or vav - CGJ - holam.
This breaks the logical order of characters, and (mis)uses the CGJ
(which would be better deprecated, despite the desparate attempts
at making it useful).
> But if this holam is to be encoded
> before the vav, the ZWJ is redundant.
It seems to be more of a spelling difference than a font difference.
But one could have the convention that <[consonant], holam, (accent),
always got the holam on the vav, even if the vav is vowelised; and
use <[consonant], holam, (accent), ZWNJ, vav> to put the holam on
the [consonant], regardless of if the vav is vowelised or not.
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to encode any new character for
these cases. (The cases with two vowels on a Hebrew consonant is quite
different.) But you have to choose if the ZWJ solution is the best or
ZWNJ solution is better.
Why does everyone jump on the option here to encode a new character?
It is quite clear that none is needed for this! But everyone is
the prospect of encoding new characters for solving the double vowels
problem (where encoding new characters in a smart way appears to
be the very best solution). Strange...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 20:08:35 EDT