From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 13:28:13 CST
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jony Rosenne
> > > >The recently accepted proposals for Hebrew do just that,
> > they change
> > the
> > > >meaning of existing data.
> My claim is that together with Qamats Qatan there should have been
also
> Qamats Gadol. Without it, the same Unicode can mean either "ambiguous"
> Qamats or Qamats Gadol, and there is no way to know which was
intended.
> For
> instance, if you have a piece of text without any Qamats Qatan, you
cannot
> tell whether all the Qamats in it just happened to be Qamats Gadol, or
the
> author had intended the ambiguous meaning.
It is just as ambiguous as it has always been. The meaning of the data
has not changed.
> Another example is cut and paste from a number of sources, when some
make
> the distinction and some do not.
That's a different issue from "chang[ing] the meaning of existing data".
I'm not saysing it isn't an issue worth consideration, but it does not
constitute changing the meaning of existing data.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 13:29:46 CST