Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 11:32:14 CDT
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
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; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is http://www.reutershealth.com Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 11:33:34 CDT