At 11:52 PM 12/6/2004, Jony Rosenne wrote:
In chapter 8, regarding Hebrew, the standard says:
Positioning. Marks may combine with vowels and other points, and there are
complex typographic rules for positioning these combinations.
I understand that this sentence should be regarded as being normativ
On 07/12/2004 07:52, Jony Rosenne wrote:
...
Consequently, there is and cannot be anything wrong with Unicode (at least
in this respect) and it does support "ANY sequence of Hebrew vowels and
consonants".
I do maintain that is some cases the typographic process would require out
of band assistance
AIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:03 AM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word
>
>
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 7:20 PM on Saturday, December 4, 2004:
>
On 06/12/2004 17:41, Peter Constable wrote:
...
At this point, I would ask that people move from voicing critiques and
stating inadequacy to making concrete proposals that identify precisely
what is inadequate and precisely how that can be remedied.
I tried to do this about a week ago, on the He
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> >I would say that pointing
> >one text with the vowels of another, without regard for discrepencies
in
> >character-count, constitutes an abuse of the Hebrew orthography, and
> >shouldn't be considered "normal" usage
On 06/12/2004 00:54, Chris Jacobs wrote:
It may appear to your eyes to be an abuse of the orthography, just as to
others's eyes the distinct Qamats Qatan which you proposed seems to be
an abuse of the orthography. Nevertheless, both these kinds of
discrepancies and Qamats Qatan are actually used in
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 7:20 PM on Saturday, December 4, 2004:
>I would say that pointing
>one text with the vowels of another, without regard for discrepencies in
>character-count, constitutes an abuse of the Hebrew orthography, and
>shouldn't be considered "normal" usage that must be suppor
> It may appear to your eyes to be an abuse of the orthography, just as to
> others's eyes the distinct Qamats Qatan which you proposed seems to be
> an abuse of the orthography. Nevertheless, both these kinds of
> discrepancies and Qamats Qatan are actually used in a significant number
> of public
On 05/12/2004 00:20, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
John Hudson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Well, that's the difference under discussion. The "plain text"
would seem to be either the qere or the ketiv (but not the combined
"blended" form), since each of those is somewhat sensible.
Is there some pl
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
That said, I have nothing against using NBSP and various other tricks
and winding up supporting this. Even the INVISIBLE LETTER might make
sense in some settings (e.g. where you have something to be drawn in
later but the diacritic is printed now, for some reason). Just
John Hudson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Well, that's the difference under discussion. The "plain text" would
seem to be either the qere or the ketiv (but not the combined
"blended" form), since each of those is somewhat sensible.
Is there some place in the standard where it says text must b
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:20 AM
> To: Unicode Mailing List
> Subject: RE: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word
>
>
> > F
John Hudson responded to Jony Rosenne:
> The idea that the position of such text on a page -- as a marginal
> note -- somehow demotes
> it from being text, is particularly nonsensical.
I think you two (Jony and John) are talking at cross-purposes
on this particular point.
The *content* of marg
On 29/11/2004 19:06, Jony Rosenne wrote:
...
Qere and Ketiv are not malformed. I don't think anyone disagrees that they
are the juxtaposition of the letters of one word with the vowel points of
another.
That most cases can be visibly reproduced by Unicode is a hack, and is not a
sufficient justific
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Jony Rosenne
> > But it *is* a
> > piece of text, however
> > malformed it might seem from normal lexicographic
> > understanding. It may not be a word. It
> > may, in fact, be two words merged into a unit. But it is most
> > certa
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 2:55 AM
> To: 'Unicode Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word
>
>
> Jon
On 28/11/2004 00:21, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
...
Well, that's the difference under discussion. The "plain text" would
seem to be either the qere or the ketiv (but not the combined
"blended" form), since each of those is somewhat sensible. Peter
Kirk's point is that the blended form is what is
On 27/11/2004 21:48, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
The change that the UTC has approved for UAX#14 ...
...
PS: The revised text of UAX#14 will not be published until Unicode
4.1, but the change to the rules has been endorsed by the UTC. While
the UTC can change its mind before publication, it could do
At 10:10 AM 11/28/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
And I will remember not to implement the official standard whenever I come
across such a note, but rather to avoid "mis-applied conservatism" by
following everyone else in breaking the standard.
I would have phrased it as: "... in following everyone else
At 04:58 PM 11/27/2004, John Hudson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Well, that's the difference under discussion. The "plain text" would
seem to be either the qere or the ketiv (but not the combined "blended"
form), since each of those is somewhat sensible.
Is there some place in the standard whe
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Well, that's the difference under discussion. The "plain text" would
seem to be either the qere or the ketiv (but not the combined "blended"
form), since each of those is somewhat sensible.
Is there some place in the standard where it says text must be sensible?
JH
--
Ti
Jony Rosenne wrote:
Jony, what do you think plain text is? Why should the
arrangement of text on a page as a
marginal note be considered any differently from text
anywhere else *in its encoding*? Are
you suggesting that Unicode is only relevant to ... what?
totally unformatted text in a
text
Jony Rosenne wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 11:28 PM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Cc: Jony Rosenne; Peter Kirk
Subject: Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word
Jony Rosenne wrote:
Normal printed
At 04:23 PM 11/26/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
As I understand it (and I asked for confirmation of this but have not
received it), according to the current version of UAX #14 there is no
break opportunity between SPACE and NBSP, because rule LB11b precedes rule
LB12, although there is a note "Many ex
From: "Jony Rosenne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One of the problems in this context is the phrase "original meaning". What
we have is a juxtaposition of two words, which is indicated by writing the
letters of one with the vowels of the other. In many cases this does not
cause much of a problem, because th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 1:21 AM
> To: 'Unicode Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word
>
>
>
On 26/11/2004 21:27, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
One useful litmus (or lackmus) test for this Hebrew example would be
whether the text in question is still legible, with its original
meaning, when reduced to plain text representable in today's Unicode.
If the special Ketiv/Qere handling is needed only be
On 26/11/2004 23:24, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
Most "break opportunities" are between words, a concept often indicated
by an ordinary space (U+0020). So you wouldn't generally have to
precede *every* combination of NBSP+combining mark with ZWSP "to ensure
a break opportunity," only those combinations
Peter Kirk wrote:
> So I only raised this issue to clarify exactly how NBSP should be used
> in such cases. Although I have been rather confused by the responses I
> have received, I think the situation is clear as follows: NBSP may be
> used with a combining mark at the start of a word, but shou
Jony Rosenne wrote:
One of the problems in this context is the phrase "original meaning". What
we have is a juxtaposition of two words, which is indicated by writing the
letters of one with the vowels of the other. In many cases this does not
cause much of a problem, because the vowels fit the lett
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 11:28 PM
> To: Unicode Mailing List
> Cc: Jony Rosenne; Peter Kirk
> Subject: Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word
>
>
> Jony Rosenne w
Jony Rosenne wrote:
> Normal printed text is hardly ever plain text. It contains headings,
> highlighted phrases, paragraphs etc.
Headings and highlighted text, when stripped of their formatting, are
still legible, and paragraph boundaries can usually be indicated in
plain text.
One useful litm
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 He
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 sho
Dean Snyder wrote:
Jony Rosenne wrote at 10:22 PM on Wednesday, November 24, 2004:
Ketiv and Qere, were two different words are written together, are not plain
text and are thus out of scope for Unicode.
Actually, it's the vowels of one word written with the consonants of
another (or just
On 25/11/2004 01:27, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
Also the following clarification is being proposed for UAX #16 on
line breaking (public review issue #56):
UTR#16 is UTF-EBCDIC, you must mean UAX#14.
Indeed. Sorry.
...
But this draft also states:
when NBSP follows SPACE, there is a break opportuni
On 24/11/2004 22:23, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 24/11/2004 22:00, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
The sequence SPACE NBSP *does* not allow a break after the SPACE
under the line breaking rules we publish in UAX#14.
The common usage in HTML, is to use one or more NBSP followed by
SPACE to mark a wider space,
At 04:53 PM 11/24/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 24/11/2004 22:23, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 24/11/2004 22:00, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
The sequence SPACE NBSP *does* not allow a break after the SPACE under
the line breaking rules we publish in UAX#14.
I tried to change does not into *does* and missed dele
On 24/11/2004 22:00, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
The sequence SPACE NBSP *does* not allow a break after the SPACE under
the line breaking rules we publish in UAX#14.
The common usage in HTML, is to use one or more NBSP followed by SPACE
to mark a wider space, that allows a break at the end. NBSPs a
On 24/11/2004 20:22, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Ketiv and Qere, were two different words are written together, are not plain
text and are thus out of scope for Unicode.
For Unicode, one could either choose one version or the other or write them
both separately.
The forms I refer to are the ones print
Jony Rosenne wrote at 10:22 PM on Wednesday, November 24, 2004:
>Ketiv and Qere, were two different words are written together, are not plain
>text and are thus out of scope for Unicode.
Actually, it's the vowels of one word written with the consonants of
another (or just written by themselves w
Jony Rosenne wrote:
This isn't what I said. I said it isn't a Unicode problem because it isn't
plain text.
And I don't understand how you are making this distinction between writing two words
separately being plain text and combining them being not plain text. In what way is it not
plain text? W
At 04:36 AM 11/24/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
I understand that the proposed INVISIBLE CHARACTER was rejected at the
recent UTC meeting. I presume that the intention is that NBSP should be
used instead.
At the moment, NBSP is the only sanctioned base character without 'ink'.
There are cases of words
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:01 PM
> To: 'Unicode List'
> Subject: Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word
>
>
> Jony
Jony Rosenne wrote:
Ketiv and Qere, were two different words are written together, are not plain
text and are thus out of scope for Unicode.
Writing them in a combined way results in some sequences of characters that are very
problematic from a rendering perspective, but there is a long standing
Ketiv and Qere, were two different words are written together, are not plain
text and are thus out of scope for Unicode.
For Unicode, one could either choose one version or the other or write them
both separately.
Jony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
46 matches
Mail list logo
