I have just spent several hours reading through all of the postings of the
last few weeks related to the problems arising from the current combining
classes for Hebrew vowels. I appreciate how much thought so many people have
given to this issue.
I am an owner of a small software company that
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 01:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote on 06/28/2003 02:48:01 AM:
If the user strikes the two keys patah and hiriq, the input method
for Traditional Hebrew will generate patah,CGJ,hiriq
That requires* an input method that is aware of the input context
[Inadvertently sent just to me; forwarded with Philippe's permission]
On Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote on 06/28/2003 02:48:01 AM:
If the user strikes the two keys patah and hiriq, the input
method for Traditional Hebrew
Philippe Verdy wrote on 06/28/2003 02:48:01 AM:
If the user strikes the two keys patah and hiriq, the input method
for Traditional Hebrew will generate patah,CGJ,hiriq
That requires* an input method that is aware of the input context (or of
what has already been input -- but awareness of
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
Philippe Verdy verdy_p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
certainly be much less complicated than what was made for
Chinese, Korean or Japanese, and quite similar to what was
done to input modern Vietnamese (Latin-based)...
Input methods for Vietnamese
At 07:10 PM 6/27/2003, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Why? The point is that:
patah, CGJ, hiriq
is one thing, and
hiriq, CGJ, patah
is another. You *want* those sequences to be distinct, right? Even
if the text has been normalized, right? That was the whole
problem with:
patah, hiriq
Philippe Verdy verdy_p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
Of course it will be a little more complex than just mapping
deadkeys on keyboards (because this would require using
multiple deadkeys, in a non-logical input order). But it will
certainly be much less complicated than what was made for
On Friday, June 27, 2003 3:54 AM, Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
At 03:36 PM 6/26/2003, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Why is making use of the existing behavior of existing characters
a groanable kludge, if it has the desired effect and makes
the required distinctions
Philippe Verdy verdy_p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
The current use of CGJ is for sequences like:
b+o, CGJ+e+u+f and e+f, CGJ+f+e+t
which still encode the French words boeuf and effet, where the
author gives a hint to display the sequence oe as a single ligated
form instead of two separate
Philippe Verdy wrote on 06/27/2003 04:46:56 AM:
Could this finally be the missing killer ap for the CGJ?
It will be perfect to allow an application like XML to encode Hebrew
text using Unicode 4.0 rules (and before).
It is not perfect. CGJ is supposed to be significant (and kept in the
Peter countered:
Could this finally be the missing killer ap for the CGJ?
It will be perfect to allow an application like XML to encode Hebrew
text using Unicode 4.0 rules (and before).
It is not perfect. CGJ is supposed to be significant (and kept in the
text) for a variety of
11 matches
Mail list logo
