Ted Hopp wrote on 07/31/2003 12:12:34 PM:
I'd propose something that would look like this in the UCD (with 'nn' tobe
determined, but it should be in the Hebrew block):
05nn;HEBREW VOWEL HOLAM MALE;Lo;0;R;<compat> 05D5 05B9;;;;N;;;;;
I don't understand at all why you'd want to encode a compatibility-decomposable character. If it's the same as something else, then this isn't needed. If it's really and truly distinct, then encode it as a distinct character, period.
It seems that the only reason you'd have for suggesting something with a compatibility decomposition is that you want to encode the combination vav + right-holam = holam male. But there's absolutely no reason why the holam male cannot be encoded as a sequence. This happens all the time for lots of languages. Precomposed combinations should not be added any more for Hebrew than any other script or language.
I will plan on preparing a proposal for a new right-holam character (with some agreeable name) sometime in the next few months, unless someone else gets to it first (I likely won't be able to do so before the August UTC meeting).
- Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
Peter, don't rush into anything. For one thing, Michael may also make a proposal. But we also need to be sure that we are proposing the right thing. For, as you say, we shouldn't encode something new that is the same as something else. The trouble with this proposal is that it is the same as something else. Specifically, X - holam - Y is semantically identical to X - Y - right holam, where X and Y are any two Hebrew base characters (or we might want to restrict its use to Y=vav). The only difference between the two is that some typographers choose to set the dot a point or two further to the left than other typographers. To insist that these two are coded differently is a bit like insisting that the two forms of a or g in Latin script are encoded differently.
But X - Y - holam is semantically quite different and very often typographically quite different.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
