Philippe said on June 27, 2003 at 10:25 AM > On Friday, June 27, 2003 3:23 PM, Karljürgen Feuerherm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I REALLY think that option 1 [FIX the combining classes] should be beaten to death with a stick, > > then beaten to death again, before settling for one of the others.
> Do you then propose to create a specific character, for use within the Hebrew script only, as a way to specify an alternate order for hebrew cantillation? In that case, it would be more appropriate to define new standard variants of these cantillation marks, and list them in the supported variants, to be used specially for Biblic Hebrew. To be honest, I'm out of my depth with the details of the technical solution, so I will leave it to the properly knowledgeable like e.g. John Hudson and so on to reply to your analysis of my general conception. Basically, I simply wanted to make a 'general principle' comment based on my experience in other areas of software development because at times one can get very involved in the gory details and I felt that a step back and global summary of what I'm hearing by and large might be helpful. (And one learns by interacting, at a certain point. I'm bound to make mistakes in the process.) Essentially, I understand and appreciate John Cowan's concern/WG2's intransigeance (?) about stability, and the promises (however it was done) by Unicode in that regard and so on, and I don't deprecate that in the least. But, I agree with Michael that one should at least ask the appropriate persons if possible, and if there is no way to get concession (one should aim for a general principle, in case this sort of concern comes up in another area later, so as not to have to go to bat ANOTHER time), THEN one should go to one of these other, in principle less desirable 'solutions'. (But one can still dialogue about them in the interim.) And in any case this should NOT muck things up which aren't broken, like MH. K
