>this was the case Someone might misread your statement. We did not change the combining classes for Hebrew.
Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com ► “Eppur si muove” ◄ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andrew C. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 08:55 Subject: Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels > Let me add that this was the case recently for Hebrew (to mention on > example). So it is certainly not impossible. > > But we have enough real work to do that we should do our best to veer from > the theoretical. :-) > > MichKa > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andrew C. West" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:11 AM > Subject: Re: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels > > > > From: "Andrew C. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > What I'm suggesting is that although "cui" <0F45, 0F74, 0F72> and "ciu" > > <0F45, > > > 0F72, 0F74> should be rendered identically, the logical ordering of the > > > codepoints representing the vowels may represent lexical differences > that > > would > > > be lost during the process of normalisation. > > > > Do you (or does anyone) have an actual example where this is the case? It > > may well be true but until someone has a proof there is not really an > > indication of a specific problem for the UTC to address. > > > > The current discussion is like arguing about a color that none of the > > participants have ever seen. > > > > MichKa > > > > > > > > >
