Re: Unicode Stability

From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 19:50:07 CST

Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: Ambiguity and disunification"

Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Unicode Stability"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Unicode Stability"
Next in thread: Jony Rosenne: "RE: Unicode Stability"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 02/03/2005 14:56, Peter Constable wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Jony's claim is simply incorrect: meaning of existing Hebrew data is not
>> changed by the recently-accepted Hebrew proposals. ...
>>
>
> The accepted proposal for HOLAM HASER FOR VAV does change the meaning
> of existing data, from correctly spelled to a spelling error.

No, it doesn't. Anything currently spelled is correct. The only possible
"spelling error" is using a HHFV on anything but a VAV, and that can't
happen with existing text, because HHFV doesn't exist in existing text.

Any other "errors" or "changes" are unavoidable facts of disunification,
brought on by the facts of Hebrew orthography.

Is it truly necessary to argue this whole thing All Over Again? When
things are decided on this list or by UTC, do we really have to keep
re-opening the case?

~mark

Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: Ambiguity and disunification"
Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Unicode Stability"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Unicode Stability"
Next in thread: Jony Rosenne: "RE: Unicode Stability"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 19:51:46 CST