From: Michael Everson (email@example.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
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