Philippe Verdy wrote at 10:15 PM on Wednesday, November 5, 2003:
>If it's not in the written text, it is not implied by the writer.
If this were true, based on the fact that writers wrote very few of them,
we would be faced with the implication that there were very few vowels
indeed in the old He
> But we Hebrew "experts" want our proposals to be reviewed in advance
by
> UTC members and others who understand the broad scope of Unicode...
There have been several such people subscribed to the Hebrew list.
Rambling verbose discussions are making some of them leave however.
Peter
Peter Con
age-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 3:54 PM
> To: Unicode Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation
> marks
>
> Gads, how I wish there were a Hebre
I agree with you here, Doug. I am copying this to the Hebrew list in the
hope that those on both lists will follow this kind of procedure. Or
does anyone have strong objections?
On 06/11/2003 08:30, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
Peter Kirk responded to Michael a few
messages later:
Please keep the
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:30:24 -0800, "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>
> I can't help thinking that other specialized lists, such as those
> for bidi and CJK, were created to resolve this exact type of problem.
CJK list ? Now if only there was a list of Unicode lists ...
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 15:53 -0800 2003-11-05, Doug Ewell wrote:
>> Gads, how I wish there were a Hebrew-specific list where these
>> protracted Hebrew-specific discussions could take place.
>
> There is. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know. I was being facetious.
Peter Kirk responded to Michael a
On 06/11/2003 05:14, Michael Everson wrote:
At 04:55 -0800 2003-11-06, Peter Kirk wrote:
We need to work towards some real proposals for improving Hebrew
support, not just chat. But who is going to know about these
proposals and assess them if they are not on the Hebrew list, and if
discussion
At 04:55 -0800 2003-11-06, Peter Kirk wrote:
We need to work towards some real proposals for improving Hebrew
support, not just chat. But who is going to know about these
proposals and assess them if they are not on the Hebrew list, and if
discussion of Hebrew is not allowed on the main list?
P
On 06/11/2003 02:42, Michael Everson wrote:
There is. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just unsubscribed from it because I just can't track the volume of
what's being discussed there.
Understandable, but sad. When new people join a discussion like that
they often have a lot of questions which need answering
At 15:53 -0800 2003-11-05, Doug Ewell wrote:
Gads, how I wish there were a Hebrew-specific list where these
protracted Hebrew-specific discussions could take place.
There is. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just unsubscribed from it because I just can't track the volume of
what's being discussed there.
--
Mi
Gads, how I wish there were a Hebrew-specific list where these
protracted Hebrew-specific discussions could take place.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
From: "Jony Rosenne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > In fact, even spelling errors are often made on purpose, and
> > wanted by their authors. What seems a spelling error at one
> > time often happens to become a normal spelling for these
> > words (look at the many abreviated fo
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The only issue is the
> medial meteg, which can be solved most simply by defining a new medial
> meteg character (or variation selector wiith meteg) which always
> combines with an adjacent hataf vowel.
According to Chapter 15 of the Unicode Standard:
Folks, we should not be cross-posting on these threads. The Hebrew list
was created to get these long Hebrew threads off the Unicode list; I
think they should stay there.
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
After careful analysis of the rendering versus canonical ordering problem of
dagesh/rafe/varika after shin/sin dots, and before vowels, I may conclude
that the sil.org proposal is completely not needed for rendering, as the
existing encoding already complies with Biblical Hebrew with exactly the
sa
On 30/10/2003 21:15, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 28/10/2003 18:49, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I just finished an Excel speadsheet that shows the Hebrew
composition model,
and all the problems caused by the canonical order of Hebrew
diacritics.
In summary, most problems come from c
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 28/10/2003 18:49, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I just finished an Excel speadsheet that shows the Hebrew composition
model,
and all the problems caused by the canonical order of Hebrew diacritics.
In summary, most problems come from consonnant modifiers which have a
combining clas
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 29/10/2003 10:46, John Hudson wrote:
>
> > While we're about it, we could propose a spacing, non-breaking ELIDED
> > CHARACTER for use in ketiv/qere where combining marks need to be
> > applied to empty space within a word.
>
> How would this differ from
On 29/10/2003 10:46, John Hudson wrote:
At 10:26 AM 10/29/2003, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The problem I see here is that ZWJ is not intended to create ligatures
between diacritics, only between clusters that would otherwise still
be a
single combining sequence.
Normally CGJ would have fitted better
On 29/10/2003 10:26, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
The problem I see here is that ZWJ is not intended to create ligatures
between diacritics, only between clusters that would otherwise still be a
single combining sequence.
Normally CGJ would have fitted better there, but this conflicts with the
inten
At 10:26 AM 10/29/2003, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The problem I see here is that ZWJ is not intended to create ligatures
between diacritics, only between clusters that would otherwise still be a
single combining sequence.
Normally CGJ would have fitted better there, but this conflicts with the
intent
At 10:26 AM 10/29/2003, Philippe Verdy wrote:
In the sil.org proposal, the medial meteg is missing, but not the right and
left meteg, as they are encoded within the same class and their order is
preserved when attached to a vowel.
It is not missing, per se. It was presumed that the medial meteg wo
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:17 AM 10/29/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> >Normally meteg is positioned below and to the left of any other low
> >centred mark. Less frequently it is positioned to the right of a low
> >centred mark. But it is always to the left of a low right mark i.e.
23 matches
Mail list logo
