From: Ted Hopp (ted@newslate.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 16:18:54 EDT
On Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:03 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> We do not encode any HEBREW VOWELs. We encode LETTERs and combining marks.
I agree with the "do not" if it's descriptive of current practice. If it's
prescriptive, I'd have to ask why. (And please don't say "stability policy"!
:))
There are exactly two Hebrew vowels that are spacing glyphs: holam male and
shuruq. Neither one is encoded in Unicode. Neither one is a Hebrew letter
(in the traditional sense) nor is either a combining mark. I thought some
new nomenclature was in order. Since there are general category Lo code
points with names like LAO VOWEL SIGN AA [0EB0], I went with that. (Maybe I
shouldn't have dropped the "SIGN".)
It seems wrong to be calling a base character a HEBREW MARK. It also seems a
little odd to be calling a Hebrew vowel a HEBREW LETTER when every other
HEBREW LETTER is a consonant. But if that's what convention requires....
Ted
Ted Hopp, Ph.D.
ZigZag, Inc.
ted@newSLATE.com
+1-301-990-7453
newSLATE is your personal learning workspace
...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:07:54 EDT