From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 12:08:44 CST
On 26/10/2003 01:17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
>
>
>
>>Sorry, Philippe, I had meant a separate character for a "right Meteg", not
>>
>>
>a
>
>
>>separate control character. Does this mean we agree?
>>
>>Jony
>>
>>
>
>Yes I agree, but I'm not a Unicode member and have no vote.
>A separate character with the modified properties does the trick and is more
>elegant for he long term, but it's not always a general solution when the
>combining order is more complex than a simple dual choice.
>
>
>
I accept that this may be the best way to go from where we are now. But
it is not elegant but a nasty kludge. There is but one meteg, in
different positions with (apparently) subtly different meanings. Suppose
that Unicode had messed things up so that "ea" and "ae" were canonically
equivalent. One way to solve that would be to define a second "e", so
that "e" before "a" is one character and "e" after "a" is the other (and
"e" not next to "a" can be either). That would not be elegant but a
nasty kludge. Similarly a second meteg.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST