Re: Normalisation and directionality (was: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 14:43:45 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: UTF-16 clarification needed"

    At 12:20 -0700 2008-07-07, John Hudson wrote:
    >John H. Jenkins wrote:
    >>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 some circumstances?

    I agree. We have a generic LTR symbol SAMARITAN SHIN, and now are
    encoding RTL Samaritan script.

    >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.

    I agree. Alas.

    Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 14:47:42 CDT