From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 12:15:41 EST
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
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:13:50 EST