Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew (was Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

John, You just discovered one more shortcoming of UniScribe. As you say, the authors did not consider this particular case. I suppose it will be fixed sooner or later. I don't see how this affects the discussion, though. UniScribe and most current fonts do not process the simple case of Holam cor

Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew (was Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

It is not a problem, this is how it should be. Jony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Davis > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:46 PM > To: Kenneth Whistler; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:

Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew (was Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

At 03:04 PM 6/26/2003, Kenneth Whistler wrote: > How about RLM? This already belongs, naturally, in the context of the Hebrew text handling, which is going to have to handle bidi controls. Ouch. RLM is not expected to fall between combining marks. Not only does this not render correctly, Uniscri

Re: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew (was Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

Jony took the words right out of my mouth: > How about RLM? > > Jony This already belongs, naturally, in the context of the Hebrew text handling, which is going to have to handle bidi controls. Another possibility to consider is U+2060 WORD JOINER, the version of the zero width non-breaking spa

Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew (was Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

How about RLM? Jony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:36 PM > To: Jony Rosenne > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: SPAM: RE: Major Defect in Combining Classes of > Tibetan Vowels (Hebrew)