From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 10:55:02 EDT
On 23/07/2003 06:48, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>There's a concern that it may not be a good idea for a developer to
>implement support for CGJ just in relation to Hebrew, and that the proposed
>usage of CGJ for Hebrew is quite distinct from it's more general uses.
>Doing half a job may cost more in the end, and one has to consider whether
>one's implementation, intended for Hebrew, has had any unexpected effects
>on one's implementations of other scripts.
>
>
>
>- Peter
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Constable
>
>Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
>7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
>Tel: +1 972 708 7485
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Peter C, I guess that when you wrote this you had not yet seen my
posting pointing out that in Unicode 4.0 developers are obliged to
"implement" CGJ, quite apart from Hebrew, as a "default ignorable
character", and that that required default behaviour is adequate, at
least as a good approximation, for rendering of Hebrew according to the
CGJ proposal. So, basically, there is no special CGJ support required
beyond general Unicode conformance.
I have been told off list that "Use of the CGJ is not acceptable. A host
of people will fight that proposal as it sets some very bad precidence."
But I have not seen any evidence of this; apart from some implementation
related concerns, I have seen arguments against it only from Paul Nelson
and Peter C. I would be very glad to hear from some of that host of
people, and perhaps to help answer their concerns. But I would be very
surprised if that host is actually as large as the host of those who are
already fighting against the proposal to define separate vowels for
biblical Hebrew.
-- Peter Kirk peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 11:37:28 EDT