From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 10 2004 - 14:58:51 EDT
On 10/04/2004 08:33, Ernest Cline wrote:
>Since the fixed position of the holam variant under discussion is not the
>same as that of holam, a variation selector would definitely not be
>appropriate. Holam has canonical combining class 19, and as such
>any variant identified by a variation selector would be of that class and
>should therefore place its mark in the same fixed position as holam.
There certainly are combining class issues with the use of a variation
selector here. But at this point I am more interested in the principle.
>The shin dot and sin dot pair applied to the letter shin is probably the
>closest analogy. Same base character, with identical looking marks
>distinguished by position only and having different fixed position
>canonical combining classes. That suggests that if the holam variant
>that is under discussion is accepted for Unicode, then it should be
>encoded as a separate character with a fixed position combining
>class other than 19. If one of the other fixed position classes used by
>Hebrew (Hebrew uses the range 10-26) is not identical to the position
>of this variant, then a new class will need to be added, perhaps class
>37 as that is the closest unused fixed position canonical combining
>class to the existing Hebrew classes.
Thanks for making the point that with this kind of solution an
appropriate combining class needs to be chosen. If you want to take
further part in the discussion of encoding holam male, please join the
Unicode Hebrew list.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 10 2004 - 15:35:20 EDT