From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 11:01:52 CDT
At 07:34 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Constable wrote:
> > 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.
Mark Shoulsons says that since QAMATS QATAN is a flavour of QAMATS,
it should behave like QAMATS. Regarding canonical equivalence, having
both QAMATS and QAMATS QATAN on a single base letter would be
pathological, so it doesn't really matter.
>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
>needed.
Mark says that "should have been" is great, but fixing one point is
of no particular utility.
For my own part, I have no strong view on this matter.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT