Collation contractions and reordering, was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 12:15:41 EST

  • Next message: "Looking for 3 IUC25 Panelist for Tcl I18N"

    On 03/11/2003 07:01, Kent Karlsson wrote:

    > ...
    >However, the UCA does ignore differences between order of
    >*"non-blocking"* (**different** non-zero combining classes)
    >combining marks **when processing contractions**.
    Kent, thanks for the hint. For the last few weeks I have been
    complaining loudly and repeatedly on the Unicode and Hebrew lists about
    the large number of contractions which would be necessary for proper
    collation of shin dot and sin dot. I even posted an estimate that 2**15
    contractions might need to be defined. No one attempted to contradict
    me, except that Mark Davis told me that I was wrong but failed to
    explain any further.

    But your mention of ignoring non-blocking combining marks when
    processing contractions made me look at the newly released I noticed there for the first
    time, maybe because they are there for the first time, the rules S2.1.1
    and S2.1.2 in section 4.2, and the explanatory note. If I understand
    this correctly, it means that if a contraction is defined for shin and
    sin dot (and no other relevant contractions), this will operate
    successfully even if an arbitrary combination of vowels, dagesh, rafe
    and meteg are sorted by normalisation between the sin and the sin dot.

    Is this correct? If so, I withdraw my complaint that the canonical order
    for Hebrew makes collation impossible.

    Is this efficient? Another issue...

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:13:50 EST