Re: Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS

From: Simon Montagu (
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 03:09:30 CDT

Michael Everson wrote:
> A new contribution.
> N2755
> Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
> Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson


> 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