On 08/09/2004 04:43, Jony Rosenne wrote:
OK, what about "ç", ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>" and/or its canonical equivalent "c", cedilla, ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>"? It is clear from this version that the acute should be red but not the cedilla. But your alternative gives no way of colouring one combining mark but not the other one....
You mean, you would represent a black e with a red acute accent as something like "e", ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>"? That looks like a nightmare for all kinds of processing and a nightmare for rendering.
No, it is more like <forecolor:black, combiningcolor:red> "e" "acute"
This is not a trivial issue, but a real one especially in Hebrew, where one might want to colour or otherwise mark up some combining marks but not others, e.g. accents but not points, or vice versa. For another example, if dagesh hazaq and/or sheva na are to be distinguished by markup, how would we distinguish <bet, "<marked>", sheva, "</marked>", dagesh> i.e. bet with ordinary dagesh and sheva na, from <bet, sheva, "<marked>", dagesh, "</marked>">, i.e. bet with dagesh hazaq and ordinary sheva? And we may have the problem that the markup interferes with the canonical reordering of this sequence between the canonical order (as given) and the logical order (which any Hebrew user would type) - which is one good reason to avoid separate markup of combining marks. This is why I am arguing for this particular problem with Hebrew to be solved with separate characters, not with markup.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
