When, in the Bible, one sees two vowels on a given consonant, it isn't so.
There is one vowel for the consonant one sees, and another vowel for an
invisible consonant. The proper way to encode it is to use some code to
represent the invisible consonant. Then the problem mentioned below does not
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan
Vowels (Hebrew)
Jony Rosenne wrote on 06/26/2003 12:16:22 AM:
When, in the Bible, one sees two vowels on a given
consonant, it isn't
so.
That's silly. When one sees two vowels on a given consonant
in the Bible
How about RLM?
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:36 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: RE: Major Defect in Combining Classes of
Tibetan Vowels (Hebrew
] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan
Vowels (Hebrew)
Jony Rosenne wrote on 06/26/2003 06:26:02 AM:
It may look, silly, but it is correct. What you see are letters
according
John,
You just discovered one more shortcoming of UniScribe. As you say, the
authors did not consider this particular case. I suppose it will be fixed
sooner or later.
I don't see how this affects the discussion, though. UniScribe and most
current fonts do not process the simple case of Holam
Whatever you do, any new characters designed for solving these problems
should not be in the Hebrew block. Add a new Biblical Hebrew block, clearly
labeled as not intended for regular Hebrew use.
And I suggest that whenever a proposal comes up to the UTC, it would be
advantageous to involve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: About combining classes
When I just look at the history of combining classes, they
did not exist in the
For Hebrew and Arabic, add a step: Find the root, remove prefixes, suffixes
and other grammatical artifacts and obtain the base form of the word.
Nearly nobody does it, and searches in these languages are less useful than
parallel searches in other languages.
Jony
-Original Message-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karljrgen Feuerherm
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in
Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)
1. Everyone is
I would like to summarize my understanding:
1. The sequence Lamed Patah Hiriq is invalid for Hebrew. It is invalid in
Hebrew to have two vowels for one letter. It may or may not be a valid
Unicode sequence, but there are many examples of valid Unicode sequences
that are invalid.
2. How the GUI
I cannot agree with some of these statements. My comments are inserted.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:43 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew
Just a reminder that the statement of the problem has not been agreed to. I
don't see a vowel sequence in Yerushala(y)im.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What has iw to with Hebrew?
I wasn't involved with the change, but I'm glad it was done. Java and other
systems probably still use it because they never bothered to check the
latest version of 639. I know for certain that this was the case with one of
the major computer vendors.
Jony
It has been claimed that some errors were made in specifying the combining
classes of some of the characters in the Hebrew Points and Punctuation
section (U+05B0 to U+05C4) of the Hebrew block of the Unicode standard.
Could someone please present a list of these errors.
Jony
With all due respect, this kind of implementation issues is of secondary
importance. The task of Unicode is to get the encoding right.
A long time ago all the vendors insisted that Arabic shaping was impossible,
then somebody did it and now it is standard.
Jony
-Original Message-
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
1. Vav Holam may convey two meanings, either just a vowel or a consonant Vav
with the vowel Holam.
Some typographers differentiate these two meaning, many do not. I don't now
if there is any Masoretic basis for the distinction or if it is late, and
whether it is consistently used in those texts
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:56 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hebrew hataf vowels (was: About CGJ)
On 24/07/2003 23:10, Jony Rosenne wrote:
1. Vav Holam may convey two meanings, either
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: Re: Hebrew hataf vowels (was: About CGJ)
On 25/07/2003 06:23, Jony Rosenne wrote:
What was the consensus
I think I have seen such a keyboard at NASA around 1976, but maybe it was
only a concept.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James H. Cloos Jr.
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 3:44 PM
To: Thomas M. Widmann
Cc: unicode
Subject: SPAM:
PASEQ is a word separator.
SOF PASUQ is used as the equivalent of a period also in other writings, such
as prayer books.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:04 PM
To: Unicode List
I don't think that it is important that the user not be aware of the
encoding, since it is only intended for Biblical scholars.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 3:50 AM
To: [EMAIL
letter
interpretation of the
two vowels pointed out by Jony Rosenne. Normalization
wouldn't destroy
the ordering of the vowels, and Hebrew-aware software could
be written
to do all this more-or-less transparently and automatically.
Hmm. Some further clarifications are in order, since
AFAIK, Finland was not part of Russia, but the Emperor of Russia was also
Grand Duke of Finland, i.e. it was a personal union of the two states.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003
The most reasonable way to achieve visible effects, as opposed to difference
in text, is by markup.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Back to
We had a discussion in the SII and the consensus was that we should object
to:
- any change or addition related to Hebrew that would invalidate existing
Unicode data or require its modification or re-examination
- any change or addition to Unicode that would make the use of Hebrew more
Fine, so we need a separate Unicode for each usage of gh in English.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Hopp
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs
Problem:
We have here one character sequence with two alternate renditions: the
common rendition, in which they are the same, and a distinguished rendition
which uses two separate glyphs for the separate meanings.
On paper, which is two-dimensional, it is a Vav with a Holam point somewhere
Peter,
I have not seen an answer to my question: Is the distinction from the Masora
or later.
The evidence you present supports a claim that some manuscripts and printers
have been making the distinction for hundreds of years.
However, the distinction is rare, and common use does not make it.
For the benefit of archiving and searching, may I suggest that we all use
the Unicode names of the characters we are discussing.
I.e.: Vav, rather than waw, Holam, rather than holem or kholam.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
This argumentation applies equally well to th (which should be at least two
Unicodes in English), gh (how many?), etc.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Ted Hopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM
To: Peter Kirk
Cc: Jony Rosenne; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
I was under the impression that old English manuscripts did use different
glyphs for the two sounds of th.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:30 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
This supports the opinion that the placement of the Meteg is not material,
but an esthetic artifact of the scribe.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:18 PM
To: Ted Hopp
Cc: [EMAIL
is agreed upon, it must satisfy the needs of both classes
of users, for input, rendering and for searching.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Ted Hopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:39 PM
To: Jony Rosenne; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hebrew Vav Holam
The characters in the block FBxx are deprecated and are not needed. The are
equivalent to their decomposed sequence.
In Hebrew, there are basically three layers: The letters, which are
mandatory, the points, which are optional and indicate vowels and other
pronunciation variations, and
We need an official Unicode Lint.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: Re: Questions on ZWNBS - for line initial
holam plus alef
On
I would like to point out that with all due respect, how particular fonts or rendering
engines behave is only marginally relevant to the Unicode list. I think that we should
deal only with the Unicode specification.
A particular implementation or many implementations may not behave as expected,
As far as I know, there are many topics not covered by ISO, for example
(Bbi-directional behavior.
(B
(BJony
(B
(B -Original Message-
(B From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of souravm
(B Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:40 AM
(B To: unicode
(B Subject:
Also cursive Hebrew and Rashi. See attached samples.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:24 AM
To: Karljrgen Feuerherm
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Colourful scripts and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:41 PM
To: Marco Cimarosti
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SPAM: Re: [Way OT] Beer measurements (was: Re:
Handwritten EURO sign)
It's bad enough to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 4:46 PM
To: Marco Cimarosti
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax Characters
We should include
05C3 HEBREW PUNCTUATION
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 8:50 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax Characters
On 22/08/2003 10:08, Jony Rosenne wrote
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 10:13 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joan Wardell;
Ralph Hancock
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax
that in
modern manuscripts on display there, about a quarter use this convention.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Mark E. Shoulson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:32 AM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Proposed Draft
Much of the ISO work is done in national bodies by volunteers such as
myself. I don't recall ever being asked to assign any IPRs to the NB or to
ISO. All I my original work in this area has been put by me in the public
domain free of any constraint, by being posted to lists such as these.
My own
Please note that Braille is used also for Hebrew. We use the same codes, but
they are assigned a different meaning. The reader has to know or guess which
language it is.
I don't remember whether Hebrew Braille is written RTL or LTR.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the record, I repeat that I am not convinced that the CGJ is an
appropriate solution for the problems associated with the right Meteg. I
tend to think we need a separate character.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philippe
Sorry, Philippe, I had meant a separate character for a right Meteg, not a
separate control character. Does this mean we agree?
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 5:58 PM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED
WG2 had published a guideline to naming characters.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:09 PM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Cc: Peter Jacobi
Subject: Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9
Peter Jacobi
While the current combining classes may cause some difficulties for Biblical
scholars (and this isn't cut and dry yet - it isn't certain whether these
are Unicode problem, implementation problems, missing characters or
mis-identified characters), I have yet to see a claimed problem with pointed
On Sunday, October 26, 2003 3:51 PM, Jony Rosenne wrote:
While the current combining classes may cause some difficulties for
Biblical scholars (and this isn't cut and dry yet - it
isn't certain
whether these are Unicode problem, implementation problems, missing
characters or mis-identified
: Monday, October 27, 2003 2:07 AM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Merging combining classes, was: New contribution N2676
Jony Rosenne wrote:
While the current combining classes may cause some difficulties for
Biblical scholars (and this isn't cut and dry yet - it isn't
As they will share the same combining class 220, the
canonical ordering will preserve their relative order
Although normalization preserves the order of combining marks of the same
class, I think no meaning should be attached to it, for two reasons:
The collation algorithm ignores such
I don't see any basis for saying now generally considered misguided. Some
people don't like them. Some of the reasons given were based on a
misunderstanding.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:37 AM
To: Jony Rosenne
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:46 AM
Is there an initiative in Israel related to the supported
glyphs and rendering features required to support Hebrew,
like it exists in
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
At 04:27 -0800 2003-12-22,
I suggest that any confidential and contain privileged or copyright
information better not be posted to a public list.
I hope the rules of this list preclude such provisions. If not, they should.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
I believe the question could be asked with respect to particular languages.
For an example of Hebrew, see the unofficial English translation of SI 4281
(1998) , Information Technology: Implementation of Hebrew in the Hypertext
Markup Language (HTML), http://www.qsm.co.il/Hebrew/si4281e.htm#render
LRO/PDF
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 5:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RTL - LTR
What is the recommended method for reversing the normal
direction of text? For example,
The NBSP issue was extensively discussed a couple of years ago, I don't
remember in which list. In short, it was wrongly used by early web users as
a fixed width space, and there is such a vast legacy it cannot be changed.
However, there are other applications that use the intended meaning - see
I thought that the alphabetic presentation forms are deprecated, however
they are not indicated as such in proplist.txt.
Jony
: which email client [was TR35]
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hudson scripsit:
Jony Rosenne wrote:
Mozilla's main value is for non-Windows platforms.
And for people who are unimpressed by Outlook's security track
record.
The main reason I spoke of the Outlook
Title:
I don't think
so. I think they would require some computer expert to set it up for
them.
Jony
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
AyersSent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:51 PMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL
When I travel, I change the time rather than the time zone, because changing
the time zone causes Outlook to mess up my calendar. This causes my e-mails
to have a wrong time stamp. Is there any solution to this?
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT [was TR35]
At 08:55 +0200 2004-05-11, Jony Rosenne wrote:
When I travel, I change the time rather than the time zone, because
changing the time zone causes Outlook to mess up my calendar. This
causes my e-mails to have a wrong
Please may we have a translation into English.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Andries
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 3:53 PM
To: Dean Snyder
Cc: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Phoenician
Dean Snyder a écrit :
Of
I don't believe 1066 and all that style of research is relevant to these
discussions. (http://silonov.narod.ru/parents/green/1066_01.htm)
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 1:27 AM
To:
Cursive Hebrew, Rashi and Square Hebrew are only font variations and should
not be separately encoded.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 3:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:47 PM
To: Dean Snyder
Cc: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Archaic-Greek/Palaeo-Hebrew (was, interleaved
ordering; was, Phoenician)
Dean Snyder wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Andries
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:16 PM
To: Michael Everson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Majority of community important, inclusion not
forcing people to do anything (Re: [BULK] -
I think what confuses the issue it the misleading symmetry between the terms
LTR and RTL.
If Hebrew and Arabic were simply written from right to left there would be
no need for a bidi algorithm and the direction would be a simple
presentation issue.
However, in Hebrew and Arabic, numbers are
+0200 2004-05-15, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Having Qamats Qatan as a regular Unicode character will have an
effect on the majority of users who do not know or care for the
distinction.
No greater than they effect that the QAMATS QATAN has on them when
they make use of one of Shlomo Tal's 1976
This applies to any requirement. Getting it approved by the UTC is only the
first step. Vendors have to put money on it, and they have to know why.
BTW, you are probably better off doing your own thing with Windows, because
there are a lot of tools available.
Jony
-Original Message-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:08 AM
To: Michael Everson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?
...
In discussions of whether to
I think we should be careful not to introduce new features, such as
variation selectors, to new scripts, unless there is a strong reason to do
so.
The fact that VS are now standard in Unicode does not require every Hebrew
software to support them, even by ignoring them.
There is a huge cost
Michael, this is not getting anywhere.
You think it is a different script, so you say transliterate. They think
it's the same script, so they say encode.
Since there are 22 letters with similar meanings and similar names, there is
not much difference between transliteration and encoding in
Your quotation in no way supports your conclusion. I cannot see in how it
could be relevant to Unicode. I have reason to believe that the tana'im were
not familiar with the Unicode character model.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Transcription does not require roundtrip. It is intended in this case for
the English speaker to be able to deliver an approximate pronunciation
adapted to his native vocal capabilities.
And with the availability of Unicode, I think the need for transliteration
is fading. It seems that these
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John H. Jenkins
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Looking for transcription or transliteration
standards latin- arabic
Jul 2, 2004 11:17 AM ?Chris
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 7:50 PM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Cc: Jony Rosenne
Subject: Re: Looking for transcription or transliteration
standards latin- arabic
Jony Rosenne rosennej at qsm dot co dot il wrote:
And with the availability of Unicode, I think
Transcription is useful and necessary, transliteration less so.
When transcribing from, for example, Czech , into English, we should not be
mislead by the fact that in Unicode both use the Latin script. In fact,
Czech uses the Czech script (= writing system, in this case), and English
uses the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Everson
Subject: Re: Looking for transcription or transliteration
standards latin- arabic
...
In one sense,
Sorry, I meant Leghorn.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Simon Montagu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 9:19 AM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Looking for transcription or transliteration
standards latin- arabic
Jony Rosenne wrote
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Starner
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 9:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Looking for transcription or transliteration
standards latin- arabic
transliteration is no longer needed or
I think the problem is with the concept of default in this case. The default
should be the basis for a specific tailoring, and as a last resort for
scripts and letters that do not have specific weights, but each
implementation should have it's own weights when it matters. Only rarely is
the
I heard on the Radio a few days ago that the Ottoman authorities forbade the
printing of Arabic for several centuries. If true, this probably explains
the tendency to write Arabic and Turkish in other scripts.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:46 AM
To: Peter Kirk; Unicode List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Folding algorithm and canonical equivalence
Thank you for reviewing this.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 10:53 AM
To: John Cowan
Cc: Peter Kirk; Unicode List; jony Rosenne
Subject: Re: Folding algorithm and canonical equivalence
...
Jony is arguing
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:51 PM
To: 'Unicode List'
Subject: RE: Folding algorithm and canonical equivalence
At 13:00 +0300 2004-07-18, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Jony
19, 2004 12:16 AM
To: Peter Kirk
Cc: John Cowan; Unicode List; jony Rosenne
Subject: Re: Folding algorithm and canonical equivalence
At 05:25 AM 7/18/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
I accept that there might be some script-specific cases in which
particular accents should not be removed. The breve
] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:53 PM
To: Mark E. Shoulson
Cc: Jony Rosenne; 'Unicode List'
Subject: Re: Folding algorithm and canonical equivalence
On 19/07/2004 03:20, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
...
Jony's right: when it's down to brass tacks in Hebrew, it's
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:53 PM
To: Mark E. Shoulson
Cc: Jony Rosenne; 'Unicode List'
Subject: Re: Folding algorithm and canonical equivalence
On 19/07/2004 03:20, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
...
Jony's right: when it's down to brass tacks
The same applies to recent arguments raised concerning the Holam and Vav and
the philosophical nature of the ways they combine.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:53 AM
To: Peter Kirk;
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jungshik Shin
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:34 AM
To: John Tisdale; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MSDN Article, Second Draft
...
numerous national and vendor character sets that are
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sinnathurai Srivas
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 10:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MSDN Article, Second Draft
Could you include the followin.
1/
Why even after about 20 years of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:07 AM
To: Philippe Verdy
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: markup on combining characters
...
You mean, you would represent a black e with a
FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group.
It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name.
Jony
I make no such claim.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Jony wrote,
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:12 AM
To: Jony Rosenne
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Jony Rosenne scripsit:
FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should
This is an old test I prepared long ago:
http://www.qsm.co.il/Hebrew/HebrewTest/color.htm
Jony
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
