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

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 12:29:41 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: elided base character or obliterated character (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks)"

    I agree with you here, Doug. I am copying this to the Hebrew list in the
    hope that those on both lists will follow this kind of procedure. Or
    does anyone have strong objections?

    On 06/11/2003 08:30, Doug Ewell wrote:

    > ...
    >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).
    (Actually, this is not quite true. Most of the recent thread has been an
    attempt to educate someone who was, by their own admission, not familiar
    with the details of Hebrew, but nevertheless wanted to help fix the

    >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

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 13:31:10 EST