> Mark Shoulsons says that since QAMATS QATAN is a flavour of QAMATS, > it should behave like QAMATS.
True, but giving it the same fixed-position class actually creates a distinction, though not a particularly significant one. > Regarding canonical equivalence, having > both QAMATS and QAMATS QATAN on a single base letter would be > pathological, so it doesn't really matter. Agreed. But having qamats qatan and a class-220 accent would not. > >I would probably leave the value at 220. That is what all of the Hebrew > >vowel points should have been, IMO. Though getting one right doesn't > >make a huge difference -- people are still going to be using CGJ to > >preserve particular sequences in the cases this will most likely be > >needed. > > Mark says that "should have been" is great, but fixing one point is > of no particular utility. It provides improvement for very rare possibilities, which is indeed marginal and only a minor drop in the larger bucket. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
