Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))

Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 11:32:14 CDT

  • Next message: Ernest Cline: "Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))"

    Andrew C. West scripsit:

    > I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm now suggesting that perhaps Ogham
    > shouldn't be rendered bottom-to-top when embedded in vertical text such as
    > Mongolian, but top-to-bottom as is the case with other LTR scripts such as
    > Latin,

    I follow you. The question is, then, whether T2B Ogham is legible or
    not to someone who reads B2T Ogham fluently -- unfortunately, your texts
    are all pothooks and tick marks to me. :-) When I asked Michael this
    point-blank, he replied with a rhetorical question.

    Still mysterious is the question of whether vertical Ogham columns should
    be laid out L2R or R2L across the page. I suppose the inscriptions
    aren't really much help.

    > Note that I'm talking about embedding single words or short
    > phrases in text with a different orientation. Of course for long passages of
    > both vertical and horizontal text, each script should be laid out in separate
    > vertical and horizontal blocks.

    I think my point was that a plain text editor that claims to handle
    Mongolian had better be able to rotate the text to vertical orientation,
    or the users will discard it for one that doesn't give them sore necks
    (which is not at all the case with one claiming to handle Ogham).

    Am I right in thinking that in vertical layout, native R2L scripts
    are displayed with the baseline to the right, and therefore not
    bidirectionally? If so, does Unicode require a LRO/PDF pair around them
    to do the Right Thing?

    (Sigmonster was right on target this time!)

    Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers            John Cowan
    Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;
    Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is
    Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 11:33:34 CDT