From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 18:37:14 EST
On 02/11/2003 12:00, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>I meant the collation order as it applies to Hebrew, of course.
OK, so you mean not the collation algorithm but the default (DUCET)
collation data for Hebrew. There are still question marks about the
adequacy of this data, and there is a clear need for tailoring to meet
the needs of biblical Hebrew users if the perceived inadequacies are not
addressed within DUCET. The amended or tailored data may need to
distinguish between different orders of combining marks e.g. to ensure
that a spelling check for Yerushala(y)im is not matched by the invalid
form Yerushali(y)am. This case is not in fact an example of a sequence
of combining marks in the same class, but it would become such a case
according to some of the proposals Philippe and I have discussed.
Currently the only such sequences in Hebrew are sequences of accents and
so of significance for collation only at the lowest level; that is a
consequence of the allocation, now generally considered misguided, of
unique combining classes to the Hebrew vowels.
Or are you in fact trying to make an argument that these unique
combining classes are appropriate? I can see the beginnings of an
argument for the principle of unique classes, but one that makes sense
only if those classes are chosen according to the logical and typing order.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 19:13:19 EST