[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: > If the "expected test results" are bad data, it shouldn't matter then > if it is consistent. Are you saying that somewhere there are lots > of people who have worked very hard to implement Hebrew as it is > currently described in Unicode 3 and they would have to "start over" if > we changed the canonical order? And the biggest fear is that the data > today won't be consistent with the data in the new order? My point > is that there *is* no data today, because anyone who has attempted > to produce biblical Hebrew data in the current canonical order would > have stopped and said "Wait a minute! This won't work".
The reason not to change has nothing to do with Hebrew data and everything to do with maintaining stability. Please review the recent archives. > I don't think we can use it to fix meteg, a mark which occurs in > three different positions around a low vowel, yet is canonically ordered > before the shin/sin dots! Will we put one CGJ on the right to indicate > a right meteg and one on the left to indicate a left meteg? No, something different is needed here. We may need more metegs. > There are many other examples of problems with the current > canonical order. Please specify them! We can't find solutiosn for problems that we don't know about. > The apparent simplest solution to all the problems is to correct the > canonical order. It's only *apparently* the simplest solution. -- With techies, I've generally found John Cowan If your arguments lose the first round http://www.reutershealth.com Make it rhyme, make it scan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Then you generally can [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie
