From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 16:19:44 EDT
At 10:09 AM 6/26/2003, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
> > The Meteg is a completely different issue. There is a small number
> of places
> > were the Meteg is placed differently. Since it does not behave the same as
> > the regular Meteg, and is thus visually distinguishable, it should be
> > possible to add a character, as long as it is clearly named.
>
>That is a potential solution, thought it would have to be *two* additional
>metegs.
Can you explain your thinking here, Peter? I agree that if the intention is
to encode new Biblical Hebrew marks with revised combining classes, then
two new metegs would be necessary if we want one left and one right. But if
one were to accept the text encoding hack of a ZERO-WIDTH CANONICAL
ORDERING INHIBITOR -- which seems less and less like a good idea, and more
and more like a long term embarassment and, like ZWJ and ZWNJ, a pain in
the neck for users who have every right to expect a sensible encoding that
doesn't require such gymnastics --, then I think one would only need a new
HEBREW POINT RIGHT METEG character, and let it be assumed that the existing
meteg character is the left position form (it's current combining class
puts it after all vowels, I believe).
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores,
are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine,
who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint
Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
- Umberto Eco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 17:03:25 EDT