From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 22:41:29 CST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Reynolds
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:59 AM
> To: Dean Snyder
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Ambiguity and disunification
>
>
> Dean Snyder wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Wrong - if you encode only one of the disambiguated usages you have
> > actually INCREASED the ambiguity of the original character;
> it now has
> > not only its original ambiguous significance but ALSO a new
> context-bound
> > unambiguous significance opposite the newly encoded character's
> > significance. In addition, there is no way to represent all
> three usages
> > (one ambiguous, two unambiguous) in the same plain text passage.
> >
>
> You lost me there. If I have <hyphen/minus> and <hyphen>,
> for example,
> there's nothing ambiguous about the fact that the former is ambiguous
> (bi-semous?) and the latter not. How does adding <hyphen> to the
> repertoire change the meaning of <hyphen/minus>? Have I
> misunderstood
> something?
With Hyphen-Minus Unicode did right - there are separate hyphen and minus
codes.
I cannot understand why in the Hebrew cases the UTC thought it isn't
necessary. The only reason I saw was that the glyph of both Qamats Gadol and
the ambiguous Qamats are the same, and this reason is irrelevant.
>
> > So you end up precisely with Jony's scenario - if you cut
> and exchange a
> > segment of some of this newly encoded and conformant text
> that happens to
> > have only examples of the original character in it, you now have no
> > context with which to decide how this character is to be interpreted
> > downstream; because the SOLE disambiguation trigger in
> plain text is the
> > PRESENCE of at least one of the newly encoded disambiguated
> characters.
>
> Lost me again. Be patient. Are you saying that the presence of e.g.
> <hyphen> in a string of text somehow affects the meaning of
> <hyphen/minus>? Feel free to explain offline if you think
> others will
> be annoyed by this. ;)
Not in this case. But we are told that the presence of Qamats Qatan in the
text means that any Qamats in it is a Qamats Gadol.
Jony
>
> thanks,
>
> gregg
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 22:43:12 CST