Peter C, I guess that when you wrote this you had not yet seen my posting pointing out that in Unicode 4.0 developers are obliged to "implement" CGJ, quite apart from Hebrew, as a "default ignorable character", and that that required default behaviour is adequate, at least as a good approximation, for rendering of Hebrew according to the CGJ proposal. So, basically, there is no special CGJ support required beyond general Unicode conformance.There's a concern that it may not be a good idea for a developer to implement support for CGJ just in relation to Hebrew, and that the proposed usage of CGJ for Hebrew is quite distinct from it's more general uses. Doing half a job may cost more in the end, and one has to consider whether one's implementation, intended for Hebrew, has had any unexpected effects on one's implementations of other scripts.
- Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
I have been told off list that "Use of the CGJ is not acceptable. A host of people will fight that proposal as it sets some very bad precidence." But I have not seen any evidence of this; apart from some implementation related concerns, I have seen arguments against it only from Paul Nelson and Peter C. I would be very glad to hear from some of that host of people, and perhaps to help answer their concerns. But I would be very surprised if that host is actually as large as the host of those who are already fighting against the proposal to define separate vowels for biblical Hebrew.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
