From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 11:49:20 CDT
> Mark Shoulsons says that since QAMATS QATAN is a flavour of QAMATS,
> it should behave like QAMATS.
True, but giving it the same fixed-position class actually creates a
distinction, though not a particularly significant one.
> Regarding canonical equivalence, having
> both QAMATS and QAMATS QATAN on a single base letter would be
> pathological, so it doesn't really matter.
Agreed. But having qamats qatan and a class-220 accent would not.
> >I would probably leave the value at 220. That is what all of the
Hebrew
> >vowel points should have been, IMO. Though getting one right doesn't
> >make a huge difference -- people are still going to be using CGJ to
> >preserve particular sequences in the cases this will most likely be
> >needed.
>
> Mark says that "should have been" is great, but fixing one point is
> of no particular utility.
It provides improvement for very rare possibilities, which is indeed
marginal and only a minor drop in the larger bucket.
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT