Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 13:25:27 CDT
Michael Everson scripsit:
> You can't play around with Ogham directionality like that. Reversing
> it makes it read completely differently! The first example reads
> INGACLU; the second reads ULCAGNI.
Which is as much to say that R2L Ogham is illegible. But is T2B Ogham
necessarily illegible, especially if the glyphs were to be reversed?
-- "[T]he Unicode Standard does not encode John Cowan idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private http://www.ccil.org/~cowan use characters, nor does it encode logos http://www.reutershealth.com or graphics." email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 14 2004 - 13:26:10 CDT