No. I have no objection to encoding one more meteg character, as has been proposed, if it is reliably distinguished from the existing meteg. John Hudson has already argued that that is enough to enable dealing with the rest of the rendering distinctions contextually.
I understood that there were serious problems with John Hudson's proposal because ZWNJ as a non-combining character is not suitable for inhibiting ligation of a pair of combining characters. If this is true, we have the choice of using some combining character e.g. CGJ either to inhibit or to indicate ligation, or of defining three new characters for the three combinations of meteg in the middle of a hataf vowel.
I believe Ken's comment at the time was that the standard does not clearly specify whether ZWNJ can be used to inhibit ligation of combining characters, and that clarification would be necessary.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
media cannibalism.
- Emma Brockes, at the EU summit
