From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 12:55:08 CDT
On 06/05/2004 22:06, Ernest Cline wrote:
>... and the position of the
>vowel points is the chief difficulty one would have in unifying Hebrew
>with any glyph repertoire that doesn't already have them.
This is very puzzling to me. What is the difficulty in positioning
Hebrew vowel points around any set of glyphs? You just need to make sure
there is space above and below. Dagesh needs to be a dot in the middle
of the letter, but even in square Hebrew this is interpreted rather
>But several of the Hebrew accents are differentiated by their position from
>other combining marks. Are you of the opinion that for example, HEBREW
>POINT TSERE and COMBINING DIAERESIS BELOW should have been
>unified? After all, they both place a horizontal pair of dots below the
>The position of the points as being irrelevant is something I'm not willing
>accept, considering the investment that has been made in Unicode for
>Hebrew by defining them as being just so and giving them unique
These two marks are semantically distinct, and the glyphs may be subtly
different, but they are not distinct in their positioning. So, yes, the
position of the points IS irrelevant, whether you accept it or not.
Perhaps these marks could and should have been unified, but they have
not been, and that argument cannot be reopened.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT