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

From: Ruszlan Gaszanov (ruszlan@ather.net)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2008 - 06:19:24 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: What to call it (was: Re: Boustrophedon (was: Re: Question...))"

    I grew up in Hungary and I've never seen any contemporary use of rovásírás. The scholars, as far as I know, prefer LTR directionality. But than again, my information is only based on my personal experience which might be limited and somewhat outdated.

    In any case, as I mentioned earlier, the problem of glyph mirroring when inversing default text direction does not only concern rovásírás and Old Italic, but a number Phoenician-derived scripts (with both LTR and RTL default directionality), so I think the bi-di algorithm needs to be seriously revised to accommodate for this.

    Ruszlán

    -----Original Message-----
    From: André Szabolcs Szelp [mailto:a.sz.szelp@gmail.com]
    Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:40 AM
    To: Ruszlan Gaszanov
    Cc: unicode Unicode Discussion
    Subject: Re: Question about the directionality of "Old Hungarian" (document N3531)

    No, it's written RTL 99% of the time, maybe 1% LTR. Sorry, your
    information is flawed.

    In that it differs from Old Italic. Also, Old Italic (and Hieroglyphs)
    are actually dead scripts used by scholars only. Old Hungarian is used
    contemporarily.

    /Szabolcs

    2008/11/5 Ruszlan Gaszanov <ruszlan@ather.net>:
    >
    >> L4. A character is depicted by a mirrored glyph if and only if
    >> (a) the resolved directionality of that character is R, and
    >> (b) the Bidi_Mirrored property value of that character is true.
    >>
    >> The Bidi_Mirrored property is defined by Section 4.7, Bidi
    >> Mirrored-Normative of [Unicode]; the property values are specified in
    > [UCD].
    >> This rule can be overridden in certain cases; see HL6.
    >
    > From this point of view, would not it be more practical (for
    > implementation's sake) to have the default directionality for Rovas set to L
    > and override it with RTL overrides when desired? Especially considering that
    > it is written LTR practically as often as RTL? At least, this way,
    > implementations already developed for Old Italic and Egyptian Hieroglyphics
    > could be simply extended to Rovas.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Ruszlan
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 07 2008 - 06:22:33 CST