- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:43:32 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13502 --- Comment #18 from Shai Berger <shai@platonix.com> 2011-09-29 11:43:30 UTC --- There is a point that was evoked for me by Leif's earlier message: a significant distinction between the sets of combining characters under discussion. I've sort of mentioned it in passing before, but I think it's a point that should be made more central. Some of the characters I wish to emphasize separately from their base are indeed diacritics; such is the case for, e.g., 05C1 "Hebrew Point Shin Dot". Anyone who can object to "acce<b>́</b>nt" should also object to the equivalent with Shin Dot. However, characters in the range 05B0--05BC (inclusive) are not diacritics in any sense but visual; they are our vowels. True, we tend to avoid using them in writing, and we have partial replacements for some of them in some contexts, but still: These are the vowels. The vowel 'e', in particular, has no replacement in any context in Hebrew; the only way to write it down is a combining character. The change introduced by the editor makes the Hebrew equivalent of "acc<b>e</b>nt" invalid. This seems to agree with Leif's PPS comment, and yet, I don't think the correct way to promote such a change (even if it is desired) is by enforcing it first on specific languages. (as I noted before, the situation for Arabic and Thai is similar to the one in Hebrew: Vowels are combining characters; I cannot say much about the frequency of use of vowels and their possible replacements in those languages). -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 11:43:39 UTC