>From: Gregg Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Now, IMO a difficult design question is whether some true morphemes >should in fact be encoded. Obvious examples: definite article, other >particles like laa, sawfa, sa-, direct object suffixes -hu, -ha, etc. >Unicode will never countenance something like that, but that doesn't >mean we shouldn't. Such design decisions should be made strictly on a >costs/benefits basis, IMO.
I'd like to restate my opinion here that such morphemic encoding is better done at the markup level. So basically encode the characters on the basis of a graphemic encoding using Unicode and then further encode the morphemes on the markup level using an appropriate XML schema. Please take a look at what OSIS (www.bibletechnologies.com) has done. They have already done a lot of this kind of morpheme-based encoding at the markup level. Regards, Mete -- Mete Kural Touchtone Corporation 714-755-2810 --
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
