From rick@unicode.org Tue Jun 10 08:59:42 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:21:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from izanami (c-71-202-247-55.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.247.55]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id m5ADxWPK004969; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:59:32 -0500 Message-Id: <200806101359.m5ADxWPK004969@unicode.org> To: unicode@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Last Resort Font now available Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:59:32 -0700 From: Rick McGowan received: by Apple.Mailer (2.95.2) X-archive-position: 3238 X-Approved-By: cowan@ccil.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rick@unicode.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Courtesy of Unicode member, Apple Inc., a "Last Resort" font is now available for free download on the Unicode server. To access this font, please go to the download page: http://www.unicode.org/policies/lastresortfont_eula.html After reading the end user license agreement, you can click the button to download the zip file. From john@tiro.ca Fri Jun 13 15:02:36 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pd2mo3so.prod.shaw.ca (idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca [24.71.223.10]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5DK2Z61030778; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:02:36 -0500 Received: from pd3mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (pd3mr6so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.21]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K2F00FZX3NNP1A0@l-daemon>; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:02:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pn2ml4so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.148]) by pd3mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-7.05 (built Sep 5 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K2F00JBP3NNLZ80@pd3mr6so.prod.shaw.ca>; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:02:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([70.66.71.84]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K2F0059N3NMGO40@l-daemon>; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:02:10 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:02:09 -0700 From: John Hudson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Combining marks for symbols? In-reply-to: To: Michael Everson Cc: unicore@unicode.org, Hebrew Discussion Message-id: <4852D241.4050309@tiro.ca> Organization: Tiro Typeworks MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <4849F9E4.8040504@tiro.ca> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) X-archive-position: 3239 X-Approved-By: cowan@ccil.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: john@tiro.ca Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Michael Everson wrote: > At 20:00 -0700 2008-06-06, John Hudson wrote: >> Apart from history, is there any real difference between 'combining >> marks for symbols' (20D0-20FF) and other combining marks? I wonder >> because Unicode 5.1 encodes a combining asterisk in this block, which >> is just what I'm looking for to encode the convention used in some >> Hebrew prayer books to indicate sheva na (long sheva). > The Star Tehilh? I'd think about a Hebrew-specific character. It marks > letters which are to be vocalized with a "sheva na". It does, but it isn't the only convention used to indicate a sheva na pronunciation. Different publishers use different conventions. So there isn't, yet at least, a clean case to be made for a sheva na character per se. John Hudson From everson@evertype.com Fri Jun 13 15:19:35 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:08:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sl14.dnsireland.com (dnsireland.com [74.86.129.163] (may be forged)) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5DKJYt8009762; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:19:35 -0500 Received: from murrisk2.westnet.ie ([88.81.100.235] helo=[192.168.1.112]) by sl14.dnsireland.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K7Fk9-0007yg-9Q; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:19:29 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4852D241.4050309@tiro.ca> References: <4849F9E4.8040504@tiro.ca> <4852D241.4050309@tiro.ca> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:19:04 +0100 To: Hebrew Discussion From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Combining marks for symbols? Cc: unicore@unicode.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sl14.dnsireland.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - unicode.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - evertype.com X-archive-position: 3240 X-Approved-By: cowan@ccil.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 13:02 -0700 2008-06-13, John Hudson wrote: >>The Star Tehilh? I'd think about a Hebrew-specific character. It >>marks letters which are to be vocalized with a "sheva na". > >It does, but it isn't the only convention used to indicate a sheva >na pronunciation. Different publishers use different conventions. So >there isn't, yet at least, a clean case to be made for a sheva na >character per se. We've encoded publisher-specific characters for Hebrew before. (Shall we take this discussion to the Hebrew list alone?) -- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com From john@tiro.ca Fri Jun 13 19:09:21 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:11:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pd3mo3so.prod.shaw.ca (idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca [24.71.223.10]) by unicode.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5E09Kot014561 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:09:21 -0500 Received: from pd2mr2so.prod.shaw.ca (pd2mr2so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.109]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K2F00G15F3KUGF0@l-daemon> for hebrew@unicode.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pn2ml2so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.146]) by pd2mr2so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-7.05 (built Sep 5 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K2F00I4IF3K4Q90@pd2mr2so.prod.shaw.ca> for hebrew@unicode.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([70.66.71.84]) by l-daemon (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-7.05 (built Sep 5 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K2F00LCSF3ID600@l-daemon> for hebrew@unicode.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:09:19 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:09:18 -0700 From: John Hudson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Combining marks for symbols? In-reply-to: Cc: Hebrew Discussion Message-id: <48530C2E.2000802@tiro.ca> Organization: Tiro Typeworks MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <4849F9E4.8040504@tiro.ca> <4852D241.4050309@tiro.ca> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) X-archive-position: 3241 X-Approved-By: cowan@ccil.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: john@tiro.ca Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Michael Everson wrote: > We've encoded publisher-specific characters for Hebrew before. If you are thinking of the long qamats, then only insofar as some publishers use it and some do not. The issue with sheva na is more complicated, because there are at least three different conventions in use to represent the same pronunciation, not counting those publishers who do not represent differences in the pronunciation of sheva. I wrote to Mark Shoulson about sheva na last year, wondering why it hadn't been tackled at the same time as the long qamats, and he said basically the same as I am saying, if I recall correctly: that there wasn't consistent enough usage to make an obvious case for encoding. In addition, I think the technical reasons for favouring script-specific marks are largely obsolete now and, unless -- like e.g. Indic scripts -- the complexities of the encoding model recommend script-specific solutions for layout, I don't see a value in introducing new combining mark characters that have the same appearance and behaviour as existing combining mark characters. Hebrew texts are already being encoded using generic combining dot characters to indicate numeral values, in masora, and in DSS transcription. John Hudson