From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 15:06:21 EDT
For the record, let me state that I for one have not yet agreed with any of
the comments made recently: I do not agree that the combining classes need
be modified, nor with any specific proposal. While I understand the
difficulties some renderers have, I am not convinced that they are Unicode
problems.
I plan to meet with some of my colleagues next week and discuss the issues
within the context of the SII, the Israeli NB.
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of
> Peter_Constable@sil.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:37 PM
> To: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew
>
>
>
> Philippe Verdy wrote on 07/22/2003 09:18:35 PM:
>
> > If there's an agreement about what should have been the
> best combining
> > classes...
>
> Describing what would be the best combining classes can be
> tricky for RTL scripts if the canonical ordering is intended
> not only for purposes of normalization and string comparison
> but also as a preferred order for storage and editing
> interaction. The reason is that the combining classes are
> intentionally based on visual relative position wrt the base
> character, not logical. Arbitrarily, a LTR ordering ... <
> below left < below < below right < ... is used, meaning that
> combinations of marks will be sequenced in the opposite order
> to the underlying line order, and so not in the logical order
> in terms of which users will be thinking. As an example using
> Hebrew, for a combination of (say) beth with qamats and dehi,
> preferred classes according to the visual basis on which
> classes are defined would be
>
> qamats = 220
> dehi = 222
>
> and so you'd get an encoded sequence of < beth, qamats, dehi
> >. But for the user, the pre-positive dehi, being to the
> right of the qamats, would probably be thought of as occuring
> before the qamats.
>
> Now, I said above that the classes were based arbitrarily on
> a visual LTR order. A RTL ordering ... < below right < below
> < below left < ... could have been used, but then the same
> mismatch would exist for LTR scripts. So, the problem is not
> with the arbitrary choice of LTR visual ordering for the classes.
>
>
>
> - Peter
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> Peter Constable
>
> Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
> Tel: +1 972 708 7485
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 15:52:46 EDT