From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 03:56:21 CDT
On 08/09/2004 04:43, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>>You mean, you would represent a black e with a red acute accent as
>>something like "e", ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>"? That
>>a nightmare for all kinds of processing and a nightmare for rendering.
>No, it is more like <forecolor:black, combiningcolor:red> "e" "acute"
OK, what about "ç", ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>" and/or its
canonical equivalent "c", cedilla, ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>"?
It is clear from this version that the acute should be red but not the
cedilla. But your alternative gives no way of colouring one combining
mark but not the other one.
This is not a trivial issue, but a real one especially in Hebrew, where
one might want to colour or otherwise mark up some combining marks but
not others, e.g. accents but not points, or vice versa. For another
example, if dagesh hazaq and/or sheva na are to be distinguished by
markup, how would we distinguish <bet, "<marked>", sheva, "</marked>",
dagesh> i.e. bet with ordinary dagesh and sheva na, from <bet, sheva,
"<marked>", dagesh, "</marked>">, i.e. bet with dagesh hazaq and
ordinary sheva? And we may have the problem that the markup interferes
with the canonical reordering of this sequence between the canonical
order (as given) and the logical order (which any Hebrew user would
type) - which is one good reason to avoid separate markup of combining
marks. This is why I am arguing for this particular problem with Hebrew
to be solved with separate characters, not with markup.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 03:57:50 CDT