On 09/09/2004 04:47, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Nevertheless, it is canonically equivalent to the sequence <05D9, 05B4>, and this sequence is used in Hebrew, and that implies in some sense that FB1D is used in Hebrew because it is the same as <05D9, 05B4>. I don't know if it is technically required that script naming be stable under normalisation etc, but it would certainly seem to make sense to make this true unless there are very good reasons to the contrary.FB1D, HEBREW LETTER YOD WITH HIRIQ, should be assigned to the unknown group. It is not a Hebrew character, notwithstanding the misleading name.
FB1D is redundant because it is a precomposed character, like most of the rest of the presentation forms and indeed most of the extended Latin blocks. And from a Hebrew viewpoint it is anomalous because it is just one of hundreds of consonant-vowel combinations, and one of only a few (FB2E, FB2F and FB35 are others) for which there is a precomposed character. But fortunately these presentation forms, which are composition exceptions, can be more-or-less ignored.
On another issue, I was surprised to see that the most used Arabic combining marks are "Inherited", although the Hebrew combining marks are "Hebrew". I would expect these to be listed as "Arabic" for the same reasons. I know some of them are occasionally used with other scripts. But we know that there are cases in which scripts are mixed, e.g. the Latin letters in Cyrillic Kurdish, and so we can't expect to avoid all such inconsistencies.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
