On 21/11/2004 22:23, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cryptically naming these two CSS classes ".he" and ".heb", which provides no indication of which is the Unicode encoding and which is the Latin-1 hack, merely makes a bad suggestion worse.
It was not cryptocraphic: "he" was meant for Hebrew (generic, properly Unicode encoded, suitable for any modern Hebrew), and "heb" for Biblic Hebrew where a legacy encoding may still be needed, in absence of workable Unicode support for now: ...
A good point, Philippe. Modern and biblical Hebrew are slightly different languages, and in principle may need different encodings. There are still some small holes in Unicode support for biblical Hebrew, most of which will be plugged (in some kind of way) when the current pipeline empties itself. (Sorry for mixing my liquid container metaphors.) But the current results of displaying biblical Hebrew in browsers, at least on Windows, are already much better with Unicode than with the legacy encoding, because at least IE6 converts all legacy encoded combining marks into spacing marks. Think what French would look like if every accent were spacing, and then think much worse for Hebrew because almost every base character has one or more combining mark.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
