RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
At 06:47 +0300 2004-09-09, Jony Rosenne wrote: FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. Of course it is. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
RE: RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
I make no such claim. Jony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update Jony wrote, FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. Hmmm... Are you claiming that HEBREW LETTER YOD (the base character of the codepoint U+FB1D) is not a letter of the Hebrew script, and you can substantiate that claim? If so, please write a document to that effect with appropriate citations and send to me for posting to UTC. Rick
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
On 2004.09.09, 05:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. Hmmm... Are you claiming that HEBREW LETTER YOD (the base character of the codepoint U+FB1D) is not a letter of the Hebrew script, and you can substantiate that claim? ;-) Though I'm sure Jony is refering to the yod+hiriq combination, it is a dead horse: After all, U+0140 and U+013F are still not deprecated and (much worse) are still claiming in the notes that they are meant to be used in Catalan. A lot of decomposing equine corpses may cause serious public health problems. :-\ --. António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()| [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| PT-1XXX-XXX LISBOA Não me invejo de quem tem| +351 934 821 700 carros, parelhas e montes| http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ só me invejo de quem bebe| http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a água em todas as fontes|
RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
-Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:12 AM To: Jony Rosenne Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update Jony Rosenne scripsit: FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. To anticipate Michael: Of course it is. It's not used in the Hebrew language, perhaps; but the Hebrew script is used for other languages besides Hebrew. The UTC refused to add Yiddish to the name, unlike the other Yiddish specialties, and I am not aware of any other possibility. Jony -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done. Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery.
RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
At 10:23 +0300 2004-09-09, Jony Rosenne wrote: The UTC refused to add Yiddish to the name, unlike the other Yiddish specialties, and I am not aware of any other possibility. This complaint is as cosmetic as it is old and tiresome. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
On 09/09/2004 04:47, Jony Rosenne wrote: FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. Nevertheless, it is canonically equivalent to the sequence 05D9, 05B4, and this sequence is used in Hebrew, and that implies in some sense that FB1D is used in Hebrew because it is the same as 05D9, 05B4. I don't know if it is technically required that script naming be stable under normalisation etc, but it would certainly seem to make sense to make this true unless there are very good reasons to the contrary. FB1D is redundant because it is a precomposed character, like most of the rest of the presentation forms and indeed most of the extended Latin blocks. And from a Hebrew viewpoint it is anomalous because it is just one of hundreds of consonant-vowel combinations, and one of only a few (FB2E, FB2F and FB35 are others) for which there is a precomposed character. But fortunately these presentation forms, which are composition exceptions, can be more-or-less ignored. On another issue, I was surprised to see that the most used Arabic combining marks are Inherited, although the Hebrew combining marks are Hebrew. I would expect these to be listed as Arabic for the same reasons. I know some of them are occasionally used with other scripts. But we know that there are cases in which scripts are mixed, e.g. the Latin letters in Cyrillic Kurdish, and so we can't expect to avoid all such inconsistencies. -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Jony Rosenne scripsit: The UTC refused to add Yiddish to the name, unlike the other Yiddish specialties, and I am not aware of any other possibility. Why should it? Incorporating a language name into a character name, as in ABKHASIAN CHE and KHAKASSIAN CHE, is done because those languages have a letter named CHE distinct from the more usual, cross-linguistic Cyrillic CHE. There is no such contrast in this case: we do not speak of LATIN SMALL LETTER ICELANDIC THORN, for example. -- Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan wise wives welcome the spring [EMAIL PROTECTED] by moving the Unix. http://www.reutershealth.com --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) http://www.ccil.org/~cowan (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Jony Rosenne wrote: -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:12 AM To: Jony Rosenne Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update Jony Rosenne scripsit: FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. To anticipate Michael: Of course it is. It's not used in the Hebrew language, perhaps; but the Hebrew script is used for other languages besides Hebrew. The UTC refused to add Yiddish to the name, unlike the other Yiddish specialties, and I am not aware of any other possibility. Names are sometimes inaccurate, viz. ZINOR and ZARQA and the infamous FHTORA. That doesn't change the meaning or utility of the character. ~mark
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
On 09/09/2004 13:31, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: ... Names are sometimes inaccurate, viz. ZINOR and ZARQA and the infamous FHTORA. That doesn't change the meaning or utility of the character. Agreed. It simply changes, indeed destroys completely, the utility of the character name. -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 07:29:20 -0400, John Cowan wrote: Jony Rosenne scripsit: The UTC refused to add Yiddish to the name, unlike the other Yiddish specialties, and I am not aware of any other possibility. Why should it? Incorporating a language name into a character name, as in ABKHASIAN CHE and KHAKASSIAN CHE, is done because those languages have a letter named CHE distinct from the more usual, cross-linguistic Cyrillic CHE. There is no such contrast in this case: we do not speak of LATIN SMALL LETTER ICELANDIC THORN, for example. And indeed the Character Naming Guidelines specifically prohibit the non-essential incorporation of a language name into a character name : In principle when a character of a given script is used in more than one language, no language name is specified. Exceptions are tolerated where an ambiguity would otherwise result. [N2652R Annex L Rule 9] The usage of the language name Yiddish in 05F0..05F2 and FB1F contravenes this rule, but these characters were inherited from Unicode 1.0, long before the rule came into force. Andrew
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote: On 2004.09.09, 05:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. Hmmm... Are you claiming that HEBREW LETTER YOD (the base character of the codepoint U+FB1D) is not a letter of the Hebrew script, and you can substantiate that claim? ;-) Though I'm sure Jony is refering to the yod+hiriq combination On the contrary, YOD+HIRIQ is a very common combination in Hebrew. , it is a dead horse: After all, U+0140 and U+013F are still not deprecated and (much worse) are still claiming in the notes that they are meant to be used in Catalan. A lot of decomposing equine corpses may cause serious public health problems. :-\ Pretty much; this is not a productive discussion. ~mark
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Andrew C. West scripsit: In principle when a character of a given script is used in more than one language, no language name is specified. Exceptions are tolerated where an ambiguity would otherwise result. [N2652R Annex L Rule 9] Indeed, but this begs the question of whether the characters in question are indeed unique to Yiddish or not. My other point stands. -- Babies are born as a result of the John Cowan mating between men and women, and most http://www.reutershealth.com men and women enjoy mating. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Isaac Asimov in Earth: Our Crowded Spaceship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Peter Kirk scripsit: Names are sometimes inaccurate, viz. ZINOR and ZARQA and the infamous FHTORA. That doesn't change the meaning or utility of the character. Agreed. It simply changes, indeed destroys completely, the utility of the character name. Not at all. As I've told you before (and you agreed before), it's just as much a fallacy to suppose that Unicode character names carry no information as to suppose that they carry complete information. The truth is somewhere between: most names are helpful, a few names are partially misleading (but not totally so). As for FHTORA, it's annoying, but I don't see how it can be read as anything but FTHORA if you know anything about Greek at all, which is probably why it was overlooked until it was too late. -- You escaped them by the will-death John Cowan and the Way of the Black Wheel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I could not. --Great-Souled Samhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
On 09/09/2004 15:07, John Cowan wrote: Peter Kirk scripsit: Names are sometimes inaccurate, viz. ZINOR and ZARQA and the infamous FHTORA. That doesn't change the meaning or utility of the character. Agreed. It simply changes, indeed destroys completely, the utility of the character name. Not at all. As I've told you before (and you agreed before), it's just as much a fallacy to suppose that Unicode character names carry no information as to suppose that they carry complete information. The truth is somewhere between: most names are helpful, a few names are partially misleading (but not totally so). As for FHTORA, it's annoying, but I don't see how it can be read as anything but FTHORA if you know anything about Greek at all, which is probably why it was overlooked until it was too late. Yes, but when ZARQA is tsinorit (there is no such thing as Zarqa or Tsinor ... placed above) and ZINOR is zarqa (I'm looking at 0598 and 05AE), the character names are not just partially misleading but false information. -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. Jony
Re: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Jony Rosenne scripsit: FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. To anticipate Michael: Of course it is. It's not used in the Hebrew language, perhaps; but the Hebrew script is used for other languages besides Hebrew. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done. Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery.
Re: RE: Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update
Jony wrote, FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name. Hmmm... Are you claiming that HEBREW LETTER YOD (the base character of the codepoint U+FB1D) is not a letter of the Hebrew script, and you can substantiate that claim? If so, please write a document to that effect with appropriate citations and send to me for posting to UTC. Rick
