Re: [hebrew] Re: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 11:30:24 EST

  • Next message: Andrew C. West: "Re: [hebrew] Re: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks"

    Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

    > At 15:53 -0800 2003-11-05, Doug Ewell wrote:
    >> Gads, how I wish there were a Hebrew-specific list where these
    >> protracted Hebrew-specific discussions could take place.
    > There is.

    I know. I was being facetious.

    Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> responded to Michael a few
    messages later:

    >> Please keep the detailed proposals on the Hebrew-specific list. It's
    >> probably best not to cc: the main list. If you're thinking of cc:ing,
    >> it probably belongs to the detailed list.
    > But we Hebrew "experts" want our proposals to be reviewed in advance
    > by UTC members and others who understand the broad scope of Unicode.
    > This avoids wasting the UTC's time as well as ours by presenting
    > proposals which are clearly unacceptable. But how are UTC members to
    > see or even know about such proposals if they don't monitor the Hebrew
    > list and if the proposals cannot be mentioned, as I proposed, on the
    > general list?

    I don't think "mentioning" the proposals is something anyone would
    object to. It would be nice, though, if the great volume of "committee
    work," which involves initial bouncing around of ideas and maximum
    controversy among participants, could take place on the [hebrew] list
    and the proposals, if any, could be brought back to the main list after
    there is some semblance of consensus among [hebrew] participants:

    "We've come up with the following suggestions for handling this problem
    with shuffling of Hebrew combining marks or whatever: (1) create a new
    combining character X; (2) redefine the semantics of existing character
    Y; (3) create a new base character Z; (4) create a Technical Report
    clarifying how things should be encoded; (5) etc. etc."

    Comments would then be appropriate to the main list if they are relevant
    to Unicode in general, or deal with the acceptability of the proposal,
    or should return to the [hebrew] list if they deal with the minute
    details of Hebrew, especially if they are comprehensible only to those
    with a working knowledge of Hebrew (which characterizes much of the
    current discussion).

    This bi-level approach is suggested only because of the very high volume
    of detailed discussion this topic has engendered, not because I think
    there's anything wrong with discussing Hebrew or details on the Unicode
    list. I can't help thinking that other specialized lists, such as those
    for bidi and CJK, were created to resolve this exact type of problem.

    I realize I may be way off base on this, in which case I'll just
    continue to make frequent use of my Delete button.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 12:24:20 EST