RE: Question about the directionality of "Old Hungarian" (document N3531)

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 16:43:41 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Question about the directionality of "Old Hungarian" (document N3531)"

    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 mirroring...

            /kent k

    > 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 *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 03 2008 - 16:45:22 CST