Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Exactly. And frankly, I am finding it difficult to understand
> why people are characterizing the CGJ proposal as a kludge
> or an ugly hack. It strikes me as a rather elegant way of
> resolving the problem -- using existing encoded characters and
> existing defined behavior.
>
> And as Peter Kirk pointed out, in the main Unicode electronic
> corpus in question, the *data* fix involved for this is
> insertion of CGJ in 367 instances of Yerushala(y)im plus a
> smattering of other places. That is *way* less disruptive
> than the proposal to replace all of the Hebrew points with cloned
> code points. It is *way* *way* *way* less disruptive than the
> impact of destabilizing normalization by trying to change the
> combining classes. And it is far more elegant than trying to
> catalog and encode Hebrew point combinations as separate
> characters.
I find the entire idea with CGJ (for any use) a kludge...
A possible solution to the particular problem at hand that
hasn't yet been mentioned (that I've noticed), is to use the
already encoded vowel characters for the most part (also
for biblical texts), but use new "biblical" vowels only for the
occurrences where they occur as *second* vowel (with an
implied invisible consonant): HEBREW SECOND VOWEL HIRIQ,
etc. (Strikes me as rather elegant, though it requires the
addition of new characters.)
/kent k
