Re: Questions on ZWNBS - for line initial holam plus alef

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 06:24:46 EDT

  • Next message: Jony Rosenne: "The relation between Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646"

    On 11/08/2003 18:03, John Cowan wrote:

    >You don't have (nor do I) the vaguest idea why Microsoft produced
    >this particular nonconforming implementation, or whether they
    >consider it a bug or not.
    Don't make assumptions about things you don't know anything about. I
    have been working closely and personally with Microsoft's head of
    typography on support for Hebrew and other scripts in Uniscribe. While I
    don't happen to have detailed information on this particular point, I am
    aware of some of the constraints that Microsoft has been under e.g. to
    avoid the inefficiency of calling Uniscribe for rendering of plain text
    in western languages. This is why they have been slow to support use of
    arbitrary diacritics with Latin text. I think this issue may have been
    fixed with the soon to be released new version of Uniscribe, and perhaps
    the problem with spaces and diacritics has also been fixed. We'll see.

    >>Surely the UTC should not create difficulties for
    >>implementers and then just shout at them for getting things wrong. The
    >>UTC should try to produce a standard which is workable without
    >>unnecessary complications.
    >This is sheer conjecture.
    No, it is not. For one thing I have not said that the UTC has done
    anything bad, and certainly not that it has done so deliberately, only
    that it should not do so. But it is not just me who has pointed to the
    difficulty for implementers of the space + diacritic convention which
    the UTC defined (with inadequate forethought rather than malicious
    intention), see also John Hudson's independent opinions and the failure
    of Microsoft to implement it. I was wrong to suggest that the UTC is
    shouting at implementers for getting things wrong though I think it
    should so so if they do. But UTC members have told me to complain to
    implementers for getting things wrong. As for my last statement, that is
    simply my opinion. If you wish to disagree with it, do you prefer that
    the UTC should deliberately produce an unworkable standard, or that it
    should introduce unnecessary complications?

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 12 2003 - 06:54:39 EDT