On 06/11/2003 08:30, Doug Ewell wrote:
...(Actually, this is not quite true. Most of the recent thread has been an attempt to educate someone who was, by their own admission, not familiar with the details of Hebrew, but nevertheless wanted to help fix the problems.)
Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> responded to Michael a few messages later:
Please keep the detailed proposals on the Hebrew-specific list. It'sBut we Hebrew "experts" want our proposals to be reviewed in advance
probably best not to cc: the main list. If you're thinking of cc:ing,
it probably belongs to the detailed list.
by UTC members and others who understand the broad scope of Unicode.
This avoids wasting the UTC's time as well as ours by presenting
proposals which are clearly unacceptable. But how are UTC members to
see or even know about such proposals if they don't monitor the Hebrew
list and if the proposals cannot be mentioned, as I proposed, on the
general list?
I don't think "mentioning" the proposals is something anyone would object to. It would be nice, though, if the great volume of "committee work," which involves initial bouncing around of ideas and maximum controversy among participants, could take place on the [hebrew] list and the proposals, if any, could be brought back to the main list after there is some semblance of consensus among [hebrew] participants:
"We've come up with the following suggestions for handling this problem with shuffling of Hebrew combining marks or whatever: (1) create a new combining character X; (2) redefine the semantics of existing character Y; (3) create a new base character Z; (4) create a Technical Report clarifying how things should be encoded; (5) etc. etc."
Comments would then be appropriate to the main list if they are relevant
to Unicode in general, or deal with the acceptability of the proposal,
or should return to the [hebrew] list if they deal with the minute
details of Hebrew, especially if they are comprehensible only to those
with a working knowledge of Hebrew (which characterizes much of the
current discussion).
This bi-level approach is suggested only because of the very high volume of detailed discussion this topic has engendered, not because I think there's anything wrong with discussing Hebrew or details on the Unicode list. I can't help thinking that other specialized lists, such as those for bidi and CJK, were created to resolve this exact type of problem.
I realize I may be way off base on this, in which case I'll just continue to make frequent use of my Delete button.
-Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
