...I can't answer for native users of Hebrew. Maybe others can, but then most modern Hebrew word processing is done with unpointed text where this is not an issue. But I can speak for what has been done with Windows fonts for pointed Hebrew for scholarly purposes.
I've got a question about the cursor movement and selection in Hebrew text with such a grapheme (made up of 6 Unicode characters). What would be ordinary users' expectation when delete, backspace, and arrow keys(for cursor movement) are pressed around/in the middle of that DGC? Do they expect backspace/delete/arrow keys to operate _always_ at the DGC level or sometimes do they want them to work at the Unicode character level (or its equivalent in their perception of Hebrew 'letters')? Exactly the same question can be asked of Indic scripts. I've asked this before (discussed the issue with Marco a couple of years ago), but I haven't heard back from native users of Indic scripts.
Jungshik
In each of them, as far as I can remember, delete and backspace delete only a single character, not a default grapheme cluster. This is probably appropriate for a font used mainly for scholarly purposes, where representations of complex grapheme clusters may need to be edited to make them exactly correct. A different approach might be more suitable for a font commonly used for entering long texts. In such a case I would tend to expect backspace to cancel one keystroke - but that may be ambiguous of course when editing text which has not just been entered.
Cursor movement also works at the character level. In some fonts there is no visible cursor movement when moving over a non-spacing character, which is probably the default but can be confusing to users. At least one font has attempted to place the cursor at different locations within the base character e.g. in the middle when there are two characters in the DGC, at the 1/3 and 2/3 points when there are three characters. But this is likely to get confusing when there are 5 or 6 characters in the DGC and their order is not entirely predictable.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
