From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:49:34 EDT
On 29/07/2003 10:46, John Hudson wrote:
> 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
>
>
So, let me clarify. You are proposing that the order vav-holam be used
for the consonant vowel sequence, and that both vav-holam and holam-vav
be considered valid encodings for the vowel only version? OK I suppose
if we can somehow ensure that these are treated identically for
collation, searching etc (though we cannot of course make them
canonically equivalent). An even more clever font would then have the
option of detecting which vav-holam sequences are actually the vowel and
displaying accordingly, thus meeting the objection that the visual
display should depend on the font etc rather than on the choice of
otherwise equivalent encodings.
-- Peter Kirk peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 15:31:44 EDT