From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 14:20:06 CDT
John H. Jenkins wrote:
>> what, then, is the distinction between aleph as a "symbol" and the
>> Hebrew letter?
> Nothing, really, since U+2135 ALEF SYMBOL is formally a compatibility
> variant of U+05D0 HEBREW LETTER ALEF and thus will go bye-bye if you
> normalize using NFKC or NFKD. In practice, the most important thing
> distinguishing the two is directionality. U+2135 ALEF SYMBOL has
> directionality L and U+05D0 HEBREW LETTER ALEF has directionality R.
Allowing normalisation to resolve to a character with different
directionality seems to me risky. Isn't there a danger of the strong RTL
directionality of U+05D0 messing up layout if substituted for U+2135 in
From a glyph perspective, the design of these two characters
legitimately differs, since the symbol characters are often harmonised
to Latin cap-height, while the traditional height of Hebrew text is
between Latin cap- and x-height.
This seems to me a very unwelcome decomposition, but I suppose it is
frozen thus for all time by stability agreements.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC firstname.lastname@example.org Perhaps the earliest widely-held theory for the Tunguska explosion was that the world was about to end. As the minutes passed, this theory was dropped in favour of other, less final theories, until today one is hard-pressed to find anyone who truly believes the world ended on the morning of 30 June 1908.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 14:23:10 CDT