From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 04:31:04 CDT
On 09/09/2004 04:47, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group.
>It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name.
Nevertheless, it is canonically equivalent to the sequence <05D9, 05B4>,
and this sequence is used in Hebrew, and that implies in some sense that
FB1D is used in Hebrew because it is the same as <05D9, 05B4>. I don't
know if it is technically required that script naming be stable under
normalisation etc, but it would certainly seem to make sense to make
this true unless there are very good reasons to the contrary.
FB1D is redundant because it is a precomposed character, like most of
the rest of the presentation forms and indeed most of the extended Latin
blocks. And from a Hebrew viewpoint it is anomalous because it is just
one of hundreds of consonant-vowel combinations, and one of only a few
(FB2E, FB2F and FB35 are others) for which there is a precomposed
character. But fortunately these presentation forms, which are
composition exceptions, can be more-or-less ignored.
On another issue, I was surprised to see that the most used Arabic
combining marks are "Inherited", although the Hebrew combining marks are
"Hebrew". I would expect these to be listed as "Arabic" for the same
reasons. I know some of them are occasionally used with other scripts.
But we know that there are cases in which scripts are mixed, e.g. the
Latin letters in Cyrillic Kurdish, and so we can't expect to avoid all
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 04:32:22 CDT