From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 12:14:04 EDT
>this was the case
Someone might misread your statement. We did not change the combining
classes for Hebrew.
Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
► “Eppur si muove” ◄
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <michka@trigeminal.com>
To: <unicode@unicode.org>; "Andrew C. West"
<andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 08:55
Subject: Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels
> Let me add that this was the case recently for Hebrew (to mention on
> example). So it is certainly not impossible.
>
> But we have enough real work to do that we should do our best to
veer from
> the theoretical. :-)
>
> MichKa
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <michka@trigeminal.com>
> To: <unicode@unicode.org>; "Andrew C. West"
> <andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels
>
>
> > From: "Andrew C. West" <andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu>
> >
> > > What I'm suggesting is that although "cui" <0F45, 0F74, 0F72>
and "ciu"
> > <0F45,
> > > 0F72, 0F74> should be rendered identically, the logical ordering
of the
> > > codepoints representing the vowels may represent lexical
differences
> that
> > would
> > > be lost during the process of normalisation.
> >
> > Do you (or does anyone) have an actual example where this is the
case? It
> > may well be true but until someone has a proof there is not really
an
> > indication of a specific problem for the UTC to address.
> >
> > The current discussion is like arguing about a color that none of
the
> > participants have ever seen.
> >
> > MichKa
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:58:13 EDT