> >It would seem to me that it would be appropriate that this new > >character's canonical combining class should either be the same as > >that of QAMATS which is 18 > > That is correct. We overlooked the properties line in the proposal, > the template for which was the earlier ATNAH HAFUKH document. Sorry > about that. It should read: > > 05BA;HEBREW POINT QAMATS QATAN;Mn;18;NSM;;;;;N;;*;;;
Well, of course, the effect of this is that a sequence of < qamats, qamats qatan > is not canonically equivalent to < qamats qatan, qamats >. No harm in that, but also not especially useful, I suspect. A value of 18 also means that sequences like < qamats qatan, munah > vs. < munah, qamats qatan > are canonically equivalent. Leaving it at 220 would mean that these are *not* equivalent (while < qamats, qamats qatan > vs. < qamats qatan > are). This is probably more useful. I would probably leave the value at 220. That is what all of the Hebrew vowel points should have been, IMO. Though getting one right doesn't make a huge difference -- people are still going to be using CGJ to preserve particular sequences in the cases this will most likely be needed. Peter Constable