From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 03:39:16 EDT
It is not a problem, this is how it should be.
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:46 PM
> To: Kenneth Whistler; Peter_Constable@sil.org
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org; kenw@sybase.com
> Subject: Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining
> Classes of Tibetan Vowels)
>
>
> Another consequence is that it separates the sequence into
> two combining sequences, not one. Don't know if this is a
> serious problem, especially since we are concerned with a
> limited domain with non-modern usage, but I wanted to mention it.
>
> Mark
> __________________________________
> http://www.macchiato.com
> ► “Eppur si muove” ◄
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
> To: <Peter_Constable@sil.org>
> Cc: <unicode@unicode.org>; <kenw@sybase.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 13:41
> Subject: Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining
> Classes of Tibetan Vowels)
>
>
> > Peter replied to Karljürgen:
> >
> > > Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote on 06/25/2003 08:31:41 PM:
> > >
> > > > I was going to suggest something very similar, a
> ZW-pseudo-consonant of
> > > some
> > > > kind, which would force each vowel to be associated with one
> consonant.
> > >
> > > An invisible *consonant* doesn't make sense because the problem
> involves
> > > more than just multiple written vowels on one consonant;
> >
> > I agree that we don't want to go inventing invisible consonants for
> > this.
> >
> > BTW, there's already an invisible vowel (in fact a pair of
> them) that
> > is unwanted by the stakeholders of the script it was originally
> > invented for:
> >
> > U+17B4 KHMER VOWEL INHERENT AQ
> >
> > This is also (cc=0), so would serve to block canonical
> reordering if
> > placed between two Hebrew vowel points. But I'm sure that if Peter
> > thought the suggestion of the ZWJ for this was a "groanable
> kludge",
> > Biblical Hebraicists would probably not take lightly to the
> > importation of an invisible Khmer character into their text
> > representations. ;-)
> >
> > > in fact, that is
> > > a small portion of the general problem. If we want such a
> character, it
> > > would notionally be a zero-width-canonical-ordering-inhibiter, and
> nothing
> > > more.
> >
> > The fact is that any of the zero-width format controls has the
> > side-effect of inhibiting (or rather interrupting) canonical
> reordering
> > if inserted in the middle of a target sequence, because of
> their own
> > class (cc=0).
> >
> > I'm not particularly campaigning for ZWJ, by the way. ZWNJ or even
> > U+FEFF ZWNBSP would accomplish the same. I just suggested ZWJ
> because
> > it seemed in the ballpark. ZWNBSP would likely have fewer possible
> > other consequences, since notionally it means just "don't break
> here",
> > which you wouldn't do in the middle of a Hebrew combining character
> > sequence, anyway.
> >
> > > And I don't particular want to think about what happens when
> people start
> > > sticking this thing into sequences other than Biblical
> Hebrew ("in
> > > unicode, any sequence is legal").
> >
> > But don't forget that these cc=0 zero width format controls already
> > can be stuck into sequences other than Biblical Hebrew. In some
> > instances they have defined semantics there (as for Arabic
> and Indic
> > scripts), but in all cases they would *already* have the effect of
> > interrupting canonical reordering of combining character
> sequences if
> > inserted there.
> >
> > --Ken
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 03:28:41 EDT