From: Mike Ayers (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 19:12:41 CDT
> From: saqqara [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:34 PM
> My 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.
Thinking about script rotation generically fundamentally requires
debating abstracts. Perhaps you would be better served by expressing your
> 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.
Consider my response to be my way of pointing out that anyone who
wishes to declare glyph mirroring and rotation to be apropos for modern
scripts will need a solid case. I'm not fundamentally opposed to these
things, but any movement or blurring (further blurring?) of the line between
plain text and marked up text really should be absolutely necessary.
> 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!
I absolutely agree. As you get some time, perhaps you could inform
us on issues directly related to hieroglyphics. I would be most interested.
or should I perhaps be checking the archives?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 27 2004 - 19:13:51 CDT