From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 16:43:41 CST
Michael Everson wrote:
> I think you should look at the Old Italic proposal and
> discussion, Kent.
I know. That is why there is a loophole, but only a loophole,
in the bidi algorithm. It covers (badly) Old Italic, which is
encoded as LTR, when overriden as RTL to (sometimes, only
sometimes, using some as yet unheard of higher-level-protocol
mechanism; I can imagine them, just haven't seen any) produce
mirrored glyphs for the Old Italic letters.
It does NOT cover the RTL case, as I wrote. There is not
even a loophole (which I think is a bad approach anyway) in
the bidi algorithm that would cover Old Hungarian as RTL
overridden as LTR to even sometimes produce mirrored glyphs.
I think you should take a look at the bidi algorithm's details
> On 3 Nov 2008, at 22:46, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > Michael Everson wrote:
> >> [...] So we
> >> proposed the default to be RTL, and the user can use directional
> >> overrides if he requires LTR directionality.
> > ...
> >> If directional overrides are used to effect LTR layout,
> the REVERSED
> >> QUESTION MARK does not mirror, and the REVERSED SEMICOLON does not
> >> reverse.
> > Neither will the Old Hungarian letters reverse (mirror), according to
> > the bidi algorithm as it stands now. See my previous email to this
> > list.
> > /kent k
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 03 2008 - 16:45:22 CST