From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 09:34:09 CDT
> >It would seem to me that it would be appropriate that this new
> >character's canonical combining class should either be the same as
> >that of QAMATS which is 18
> That is correct. We overlooked the properties line in the proposal,
> the template for which was the earlier ATNAH HAFUKH document. Sorry
> about that. It should read:
> 05BA;HEBREW POINT QAMATS QATAN;Mn;18;NSM;;;;;N;;*;;;
Well, of course, the effect of this is that a sequence of < qamats,
qamats qatan > is not canonically equivalent to < qamats qatan, qamats
>. No harm in that, but also not especially useful, I suspect.
A value of 18 also means that sequences like < qamats qatan, munah > vs.
< munah, qamats qatan > are canonically equivalent. Leaving it at 220
would mean that these are *not* equivalent (while < qamats, qamats qatan
> vs. < qamats qatan > are). This is probably more useful.
I would probably leave the value at 220. That is what all of the Hebrew
vowel points should have been, IMO. Though getting one right doesn't
make a huge difference -- people are still going to be using CGJ to
preserve particular sequences in the cases this will most likely be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT