A new contribution.
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf N2755 Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson
Nice.
> 8a. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation > form of an existing character or character sequence? > No.
Is this overstating the case? As Mark said on the Hebrew list a little while ago:
> Things like the Simanim Tehillim and the Simanim Tiqqun are almost a > poster-case of fancy text. Their very selling point is that they are > clearer and make more distinctions than plain printing. It's when > such conventions enter the mainstream (and there's obviously a > continuum in that regard, and room for disagreement) that we start to > consider them plaintext distinctions and thus to be encoded > separately.
I think it would be good if the proposal anticipated the objection that qamats qatan could be considered as a presentation form or glyph variation of qamats and provided the counter-arguments. (Or would answering "Yes" to 8a just guarantee rejection?)
<flippancy>Isn't it a little strange that a "short qamats" should represented with a longer vertical than a regular qamats?</flippancy>
