Normal printed text is hardly ever plain text. It contains headings, highlighted phrases, paragraphs etc.
The Hebrew Bible has its unique non-plain text artifacts, such as Ketiv/Qere. If standardization is necessary, take it to the SGML people. Simple cases of Ketiv/Qere can be managed without mark-up, for example when the vowels of the Qere happen to fit the Ketiv, but this is not a general solution nor does it imply that it is not a markup item. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 2:12 PM > To: Mark E. Shoulson > Cc: Dean Snyder; Unicode List > Subject: Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word > > > On 26/11/2004 03:40, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > > ... > > > > I think part of what makes Biblical Hebrew so contentious is the > > unstated assumption that "the BHS text of the Bible *must* be > > considered plain-text." It's not necessarily so. It isn't > > necessarily a bad rule to work with, but it isn't one we > should take > > for granted, and it's one we do need to examine and consider. > > > I understand that this is not self-evident. But let's look at the > arguments. The word forms which by my contention should be > supported as > plain text are the ones actually found, not just in a single Bible > edition, but in Hebrew Bible manuscripts from the 10th > century CE and in > all printed editions, except perhaps for some simplified ones, until > today. (Some of the special features which have already been > accepted by > the UTC, such as right METEG, are found in only some such manuscripts > and editions, but this is not true of the Qere/Ketiv blended > forms.) And > the distinctions made have real semantic significance, they are not > simply layout preferences. As I understand it, Unicode intends to be > able to represent the semantically significant features of texts in > general use. This is clearly a text in general use, and the special > formatting features of it are semantically significant. > Therefore they > should be represented in Unicode. > > It is true that these special formatting features have a complex > relationship to the actual phonetic realisation of the text, > and can be > fully understood only in conjunction with the marginal notes. But > Unicode has never been intended to represent the phonetic > realisation of > a text, and it has certainly not been restricted to > characters which are > part of that phonetic realisation. The criterion for a > Unicode character > is not that it has a distinct sound, but that it has a distinct, and > semantically significant, written form. These Qere/Ketiv > blended forms > are the actual written forms in the text, and as such, > irrespective of > how they might be pronounced or not pronounced, they are the > ones which > Unicode needs to represent. > > > -- > Peter Kirk > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) > http://www.qaya.org/ > > > > >
