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: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining > Classes of Tibetan Vowels) > > > Another consequence is that it separates the sequence into > two combining sequences, not one. Don't know if this is a > serious problem, especially since we are concerned with a > limited domain with non-modern usage, but I wanted to mention it. > > Mark > __________________________________ > http://www.macchiato.com > ► “Eppur si muove” ◄ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 13:41 > Subject: Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining > Classes of Tibetan Vowels) > > > > Peter replied to Karljürgen: > > > > > Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote on 06/25/2003 08:31:41 PM: > > > > > > > I was going to suggest something very similar, a > ZW-pseudo-consonant of > > > some > > > > kind, which would force each vowel to be associated with one > consonant. > > > > > > An invisible *consonant* doesn't make sense because the problem > involves > > > more than just multiple written vowels on one consonant; > > > > I agree that we don't want to go inventing invisible consonants for > > this. > > > > BTW, there's already an invisible vowel (in fact a pair of > them) that > > is unwanted by the stakeholders of the script it was originally > > invented for: > > > > U+17B4 KHMER VOWEL INHERENT AQ > > > > This is also (cc=0), so would serve to block canonical > reordering if > > placed between two Hebrew vowel points. But I'm sure that if Peter > > thought the suggestion of the ZWJ for this was a "groanable > kludge", > > Biblical Hebraicists would probably not take lightly to the > > importation of an invisible Khmer character into their text > > representations. ;-) > > > > > in fact, that is > > > a small portion of the general problem. If we want such a > character, it > > > would notionally be a zero-width-canonical-ordering-inhibiter, and > nothing > > > more. > > > > The fact is that any of the zero-width format controls has the > > side-effect of inhibiting (or rather interrupting) canonical > reordering > > if inserted in the middle of a target sequence, because of > their own > > class (cc=0). > > > > I'm not particularly campaigning for ZWJ, by the way. ZWNJ or even > > U+FEFF ZWNBSP would accomplish the same. I just suggested ZWJ > because > > it seemed in the ballpark. ZWNBSP would likely have fewer possible > > other consequences, since notionally it means just "don't break > here", > > which you wouldn't do in the middle of a Hebrew combining character > > sequence, anyway. > > > > > And I don't particular want to think about what happens when > people start > > > sticking this thing into sequences other than Biblical > Hebrew ("in > > > unicode, any sequence is legal"). > > > > But don't forget that these cc=0 zero width format controls already > > can be stuck into sequences other than Biblical Hebrew. In some > > instances they have defined semantics there (as for Arabic > and Indic > > scripts), but in all cases they would *already* have the effect of > > interrupting canonical reordering of combining character > sequences if > > inserted there. > > > > --Ken > > > > > > > > > > >
