The most important Hebrew feature Faithlife (Lexham) could ever have

Thanks for the suggestion, David. I think these kinds of editions are interesting. I've consulted them on occasion - when I'm unsure of where the accent falls on a word with a post-positive or a pre-positive accent (where the position of the accent doesn't necessarily tell you the normal stress syllable) or to find out what a metheg is doing (metheg being a symbol that has a wide variety of uses - these editions don't codify the metheg uses, but you can see what effect, if any, they have on nearby qametses and shewas). Despite the fact that they may represent a reading tradition that is relatively modern (or at least post-Masoretic), it's still useful to get a native speaker's read on some words.

The main problem with producing an edition like this in Logos is that there's no way to represent these texts using Unicode. You'd need two code points for shewa, for instance - one for vocal, one for silent. You'd need two dagesh code points as well. You'd probably end up needing an extra code point for the quiescent alef (assuming that the wide alef code point is being used for something else, like the rare alef-mappiq combo or other places to ensure the glottal stop is pronounced where someone might be tempted to treat it as a matres lectionis). Unicode does already have two code points for qamets and for holem. Some editions would have additional challenges: for example the one on my desk marks the accent syllable, if it differs from the pre-positive or post-positive accent, by repeating the accent in light grey (to show it isn't in the text) over the expected letter. In Unicode, a single glyph covers the combination of a consonant and all the combining marks on that consonant, so introducing a color change (like black to grey) between a consonant (or vowel) and an accent would break the glyph look-up, so the marks would be positioned wrong - possibly with additional dotted circles inserted into the text, depending on the text rendering engine/platform used to display the text. Perhaps one could work-around these limitations, but the most obvious work-arounds would involve more Unicode code points for the pre-positive and post-positive accents (for example giving the extra pashta a slightly different shape instead of a grey color). Someone really clever with font design chops could use a custom font with code points from the combining diacritical range to accomplish MOST of what is needed, but then the resulting text would only function with one, non-standard font, and wouldn't index/search as expected - and would require non-standard keyboards to encode text or type out search strings - all of which defeats (some of) the points of using Unicode.

So the first step to doing something like this would be having someone write a formal proposal for the set of new code points needed and their behavior and shepherd it through the Unicode committees. Since there is a well established publishing history for editions like this, it strikes me as possible to get changes like this approved, but sometimes I'm surprised by what Unicode won't consider. Then you'd have to wait for the changes to be implemented by the software vendors who support Unicode and get the work done in the relevant fonts to support this representation. Of course, we'd also need to be able to license one of these texts (probably before we bothered to put any work into the technical solution), and that has all the normal challenges of forming a new relationship with a print publisher we haven't worked with before. I do actually like the idea, but it does feel a long way off. Alternately, if one didn't care about searching, you might be able to do some of print replica that was basically just images of each page with some work put in to help navigate to the right verse. We're not really set up for those kinds of resources at present, but if we ever do have a decent solution for facsimiles, I'll refloat this idea.