From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Apr 13 2004 - 11:21:54 EDT
From: "John Hudson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >>>The problem with <HOLAM, VAV> is that it may follow (in the encoded
> >>>sequence) some other grapheme cluster terminated by other cantillation
> >>>marks. So for me the best candidate would be: <CGJ, HOLAM, VAV>...
> Would ZWNJ perform the same function?
> If the intent is that the holam be associated with the vav rather than the
> letter, it seems to me that a control character that does not suggest joining
> with the preceding letter would be tidier. I realise that from a processing
> might be irrelevant, but it would be nice if the names of these control
> suggested something about their use.
Yes, but the two options need to be coinsidered with the possible caveats with
existing implementations. I don't know which is better for collation purpose (I
was said that CGJ should never be rendered, but just used to control and avoid
canonical reordering, which is why I proposed it: it is not really part of the
sequence, but is just inserted to avoid the normalization caveat, so a renderer
whould just skip over it after normalization, and a renderer that performs
normalization first could then process the string assuming a consistent order of
sequences, without having to consider the case of CGJ).
Also ZWNJ suggests a break which may cause caveats as holam male is expected to
occur in the middle or at end of a word, and any attempt to isolate it from the
beginning of the word would be disastrous. Is ZWNJ creating a break opportunity?
I need to recheck its status in the existing Unicode reference then.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 13 2004 - 12:14:45 EDT