> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Whistler [mailto:kenw@sybase.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 9:48 PM
> To: rosenne@qsm.co.il
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org; kenw@sybase.com
> Subject: RE: Canonical ordering
>
>
> Jony,
>
> >
> > I would like to take this opportunity to state that the Unicode rendering and
> placement
> > rules are not suitable for Hebrew.
>
> This is a rather extreme and absolutist statement to be making to the list.
I'm sorry. Please ignore it.
> Would you care to elaborate a bit on this claim to explain why you take
> this position?
>
> >
> > In particular:
> >
> > The order of the diacritical marks should not affect their rendering.
>
> Correct. But this is, presumably, one of the reasons why all the Hebrew
> points got fixed position classes (cf. The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0,
> page 81). Whatever order points are entered in the text, their canonical
> ordering will be sorted out by the fixed position class assignments. And
> a Hebrew rendering process should be savvy to the exact positions of
> all points for letters (and what happens when combinations of points and/or
> accents are applied to the same letter).
This is what I meant to say - the Hebrew rendering process should know what to do. Your
phrasing is much better than mine.
There are also the accents (cantillation marks) to be considered.
>
> >
> > If you don't know how to render them, or it gets too complicated, or you just
> don't feel
> > like it, just ignore them.
>
> I take it this is a recommendation for default display of Hebrew: that
> it is better to leave the points and accents off than to display them
> in a garbled way, with their positions on characters not in the
> expected and legible positions.
Yes.
Jony
>
> --Ken
>
>
> > Do not display an unrenderable character glyph.
> >
> > Jony
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT