From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:46:50 EDT
At 06:11 AM 7/29/2003, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
>Well, that was precisely the question. Are we talking about a mere
>preference of visual effect or an actual difference in (original) text--that
>is, an intended semantic differentiation?
A good question, and one for which I would like to know the answer. I have
Unicode text from Libronix, derived from the Westminster Theological
Seminary text, that clearly encodes holam_vav distinctly from vav_holam,
indicating that someone thought it was important enough a distinction to
carefully make during the original WTS transcription. Fonts for this kind
of text encoding need complex contextual lookups to prevent the holam from
attaching to the preceding consonant. The same fonts will also display the
vav_holam encoding correctly, i.e. without a distinction. So from a display
perspective, this is one issue that is already solved: the question is one
of document encoding and comparison.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
media cannibalism.
- Emma Brockes, at the EU summit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 15:07:48 EDT