From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 15:42:31 EDT
On 31/07/2003 12:12, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
>
>
>
>>I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' to
>>
>>
>be
>
>
>>determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
>>
>>05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R;<compat> 05D5 05B9;;;;N;;;;;
>>
>>
>
>I don't understand at all why you'd want to encode a
>compatibility-decomposable character. If it's the same as something else,
>then this isn't needed. If it's really and truly distinct, then encode it
>as a distinct character, period.
>
>It seems that the only reason you'd have for suggesting something with a
>compatibility decomposition is that you want to encode the combination vav
>+ right-holam = holam male. But there's absolutely no reason why the holam
>male cannot be encoded as a sequence. This happens all the time for lots of
>languages. Precomposed combinations should not be added any more for Hebrew
>than any other script or language.
>
>I will plan on preparing a proposal for a new right-holam character (with
>some agreeable name) sometime in the next few months, unless someone else
>gets to it first (I likely won't be able to do so before the August UTC
>meeting).
>
>
>
>- Peter
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Constable
>
>Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
>7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
>Tel: +1 972 708 7485
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Peter, don't rush into anything. For one thing, Michael may also make a
proposal. But we also need to be sure that we are proposing the right
thing. For, as you say, we shouldn't encode something new that is the
same as something else. The trouble with this proposal is that it is the
same as something else. Specifically, X - holam - Y is semantically
identical to X - Y - right holam, where X and Y are any two Hebrew base
characters (or we might want to restrict its use to Y=vav). The only
difference between the two is that some typographers choose to set the
dot a point or two further to the left than other typographers. To
insist that these two are coded differently is a bit like insisting that
the two forms of a or g in Latin script are encoded differently.
But X - Y - holam is semantically quite different and very often
typographically quite different.
-- Peter Kirk peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:23:27 EDT