From: Simon Montagu (smontagu@smontagu.org)
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 03:09:30 CDT
Michael Everson wrote:
> A new contribution.
>
> http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
> N2755
> Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
> Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson
>
>
Nice.
> 8a. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation
> form of an existing character or character sequence?
> No.
Is this overstating the case? As Mark said on the Hebrew list a little
while ago:
> Things like the Simanim Tehillim and the Simanim Tiqqun are almost a
> poster-case of fancy text. Their very selling point is that they are
> clearer and make more distinctions than plain printing. It's when
> such conventions enter the mainstream (and there's obviously a
> continuum in that regard, and room for disagreement) that we start to
> consider them plaintext distinctions and thus to be encoded
> separately.
I think it would be good if the proposal anticipated the objection that
qamats qatan could be considered as a presentation form or glyph
variation of qamats and provided the counter-arguments. (Or would
answering "Yes" to 8a just guarantee rejection?)
<flippancy>Isn't it a little strange that a "short qamats" should
represented with a longer vertical than a regular qamats?</flippancy>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT