> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
