Re: Glyph Stance

From: saqqara (
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 18:34:27 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: [BULK] - Re: Vertical BIDI"

    RE: Glyph StanceMy original reply was about the question of ancient scripts that used alternate glyph poses - I suggested this issue is worth thinking about generically, not just on a proposal by proposal basis for individual scripts. As one of the small number actively working on software for Egyptian scripts and in contact with that user community, I have a practical interest in appropriate plain text representations rather than a desire to debate abstracts.

    I'm not very interested personally in the application to modern scripts, the mention of Latin mirroring in advertising was to point out that it *may* also be an issue for anyone who is.

    Your opinions below on the semantics of non-standard typography and the purpose of advertising - as you indicated, too easy to slip OT so I'll resist the temptation to continue debate and hope we can agree to spare the unicode list further pain!

    Bob Richmond
    Saqqara Technology

    From: Mike Ayers, Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:53 PM

              Hopefully this doesn't veer OT, but let's see if we have agreement or not...

      From: saqqara Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM

    > In the case of Toys <mirror>R</mirror> Us, stating the R is incorrect is
    > a value judgement..

              If one is speakinging in terms of English orthography, then this is not a value judgement, it is a simple statement of fact. The "R" is turned backwards to evoke the backwards letters often written by children still learning to read and write.

    > You cannot presume as fact these constructions are 'to get attention', they

              If they're advertising? No, I feel pretty safe making a universal statement that the purpose of advertising is to get attention. Do you really consider this controversial?

    > may be to produce a more pleasing symmetry or communicate meaning, just as
    > the Egyptians had a different notion of writing than is supported by our
    > more functional alphabetic scripts. Although my gut feeling agrees with
    > yours on plain text implications for Latin script, I haven't studied the
    > subject in depth so I may well be wrong.

              We're talking about my only language here. There is no implicit meaning gained by glitching characters other than "buy X" or "subscribe to belief Y", which does not add meaning to the words, just the letters that are glitched. Nor does the glitching improve symmetry - it destroys it, which is why it gets attention - it stand out precisely because it is wrong.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 27 2004 - 18:30:59 CDT