On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ted Hopp wrote on 07/29/2003 01:20:08 PM:
> > The two vowels kholam male and shuruq have nothing to do with the
> consonant
> > vav (HEBREW LETTER VAV) other than that they are written with the same
> > glyph.
>
> If they are written w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> > These different uses for the same (or approximately same) glyphs
>
> Well, are the glyphs the same, or only approximately the same?
They are similar enough that they *can* be represented by the same glyph,
but that is not best practice. Best practice is to use ri
On 30/07/2003 14:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/29/2003 01:20:08 PM:
These different uses for the same (or approximately same) glyphs
Well, are the glyphs the same, or only approximately the same?
This is the moot point.
For qamats and sheva, the glyphs are usually
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/30/2003 11:43:10 AM:
> One of the key points some of us are trying to make is that vav with
kholam
> khaser is a different mark on the page than a kholam male. Different
> semantics AND different appearance, but no separate Unicode encoding.
In your earlier message, to which
Ted Hopp wrote on 07/29/2003 01:20:08 PM:
> The two vowels kholam male and shuruq have nothing to do with the
consonant
> vav (HEBREW LETTER VAV) other than that they are written with the same
> glyph.
If they are written with the same glyph, then they are written with the
same character. Unico
Ted Hopp scripsit:
> Besides, what's all this that I keep reading about Unicode encodes
> characters, not glyphs? From Chapter 1: "[T]he standard defines how
> characters are interpreted, not how glyphs are rendered." The "code what you
> see" approach, while probably the reality of Unicode, seems
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:39 PM, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Ted Hopp wrote:
> > When I first
> > saw it, I had assumed that FB4B was supposed to be used for
> > kholam male (and that's what we use it for in our code).
>
> FB4B;HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM;Lo;0;R;05D5 05B9N;
>
> FB4B is *ca
Ted Hopp wrote:
> When I first
> saw it, I had assumed that FB4B was supposed to be used for
> kholam male (and that's what we use it for in our code).
FB4B;HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM;Lo;0;R;05D5 05B9N;
FB4B is *canonically* equivalent to <05D5, 05B9>, so you cannot
expect a distincti
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree 100% with your description of the characters that have not been
> encoded in Unicode. There are certainly marks and consonants that mean two
> completely different things, as you have so accurately described. But
there
> are t
Ted,
I agree 100% with your description of the characters that have not been
encoded in Unicode. There are certainly marks and consonants that mean two
completely different things, as you have so accurately described. But there
are two approaches to encoding. There is "Code what you see" and "Code
On 29/07/2003 11:20, Ted Hopp wrote:
Okay -- there are two Hebrew vowels that are not encoded in Unicode. Their
(transliterated) Hebrew names are (caps indicate syllable accent): khoLAM
maLE and shuRUQ. The kholam male LOOKS like a "vav with holam" [05D5.05B9]
or the alphabetic presentation form F
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:27 PM, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> Fine, so we need a separate Unicode for each usage of gh in English.
Absolutely. We already have 007C (VERTICAL LINE), 01C0 (LATIN LETTER DENTAL
CLICK), 2223 (DIVIDES), and 2758 (LIGHT VERTICAL BAR).
We also have 00C5 (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER
Fine, so we need a separate Unicode for each usage of gh in English.
Jony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Hopp
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: SPAM: Re: Back to He
Okay -- there are two Hebrew vowels that are not encoded in Unicode. Their
(transliterated) Hebrew names are (caps indicate syllable accent): khoLAM
maLE and shuRUQ. The kholam male LOOKS like a "vav with holam" [05D5.05B9]
or the alphabetic presentation form FB4B (HEBREW LETTER VAV WITH HOLAM) and
Joan,
> I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem comes before or
> after the waw in holem-waw <...> This lends credence
> to those of us who are BHS fans and would like to see a visible difference
> between
> holem-waw and waw-holem. The most reasonable means of achieving this is
15 matches
Mail list logo
