From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 07:27:43 EST
On 09/02/2004 18:25, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> At 04:12 PM 2/9/2004, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>> That leaves item A. And it is mostly a matter of determining
>> what is the best mechanism for getting people to know how
>> they should "spell" the metegs with the minimum of confusion.
>> Putting something in the Unicode Standard might be appropriate,
>> or there might be better venues to document the conventions.
> I'm of the opinion that conventions that use characters of
> general category Cf are best documented in the standard. Otherwise,
> a consistent treatment of such characters across implementations
> depends too much on context (e.g. use of a particular font).
> "Fine typography" issues for other characters, incl. combining
> are a different matter. These will legitimately differ even
> among uses of the same character (viz. math and text handling
> of accents, for example).
Thank you, Ken and Asmus. I think I will take this back to the Unicode
Hebrew list and see if we can all agree on a convention for using ZWJ,
ZWNJ etc with meteg, now that the way is open for their use. And we may
look again at some other issues which are more than just spelling
conventions. Then we can formally propose something to the UTC, and the
UTC can decide whether this is approprite for inclusion in the standard.
One question here which is more of principle. Last year there was a long
discussion of the appropriate method of inhibiting undesirable canonical
reordering e.g. between meteg and vowels but potentially in other
scripts. The mechanism agreed on, I think formally by the UTC, was to
use CGJ. But one reason for using CGJ was that ZWJ and ZWNJ were not
then available in this position. Now that they are available, would it
be better to use them rather than CGJ?
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 10 2004 - 08:13:04 EST