Re: Re: agenda+. FPWD for Hebrew layout docs

John, thanks for spotting these things. See notes below...

John C Klensin wrote on 20/08/2020 03:37:
> --On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 17:03 +0100 r12a <ishida@w3.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I've been working on filling out the following docs with
>> information that was lying around in the hlreq issue list:
>>
>> https://w3c.github.io/hlreq/
>>
>> https://w3c.github.io/hlreq/gap-analysis/
>>
>>
>> I'd like to publish both docs as FPWDs to accompany the ones
>> we published recently.  Any objections/questions?
>>
>> ri
> The second paragraph in the Status section of a gap analysis
> starts "This document describes and prioritises gaps for the
> support of Hungarian on the Web...".  I wasn't aware of writing
> of Hungarian in Hebrew script :-).  The second paragraph of
> Section 1 has a similar problem: however you are deriving one of
> these documents from others may need touching up.

Oops. Fixed.

> In 3.2 the fonts are either ok (if one is sticking strictly to
> Hebrew, especially modern Hebrew) but are only questionably
> complete for Yiddish.  I don't have enough knowledge to evaluate
> Ladino etc.  (Ladino is generally considered endangered or
> significantly endangered; other relevant languages like
> Judeo-Arabic are probably dead for all practical purposes.)
> There are also some issues with geresh and Gershayim and whether
> substitution of single and double quotes (apostrophes) is really
> acceptable.

That prompted me to clarify in the intro/abstract that this document is 
focused on Modern Israeli Hebrew (at least for the time being).

What's also potentially of interest is that Hebrew appears to have at 
least 2 distinct writing styles, Stam and Rashi.  Which feeds into the 
debate about generic fonts.  But (a) i need to discuss more with the 
experts, and (b) those are associated with biblical texts, rather than 
with modern Israeli usage.
> I can give you some hints about 3.10, but "needs research" is
> certainly true.
>
> The examples in #18 should probably be in Hebrew for this
> document.

Yeah.  I updated the content.  It raises some additional questions about 
directionality, but we can come to that later.
> The example in 3.4 (#16) points to a page that does not, at
> least under Firefox and Windows, display the red dots it is
> talking about.
There appear to be some graphics on the left side of the page that show 
the colour-coding.  I think that's what he was referring to.
> In 3.13, I believe modern Hebrew is generally written using
> European digits.  Biblical and liturgical Hebrew and sometimes
> modern forms use traditional additive (non-positional) forms
> consisting of letters interpreted numerically and normally
> introduced by gershayim.  Still needs research.

Yes, i agree.  There are number assignments for letters, but not often 
used in modern text except iiuc for things like list counters.
> That is somewhat past the limits of my knowledge, but I think it
> suggests that at least the gap analysis would benefit from
> another iteration.
>
Thanks!
ri