From: jon@hackcraft.net
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 06:04:15 EST
> Agreed. But if you want to write English with the Theban script, as
> there are no Theban characters? Or what if you want to write English
> with the RTL version of the Theban script which I found mentioned at
> http://catb.org/~esr/unicode/theban/? That can't be done by glyph level
> substitution.
RTL use of Theban is a conscious decision and comparable to RTL use of Latin (a
practice which occurs in user-communities which overlap strongly with those for
Theban). Explicit overrides, whether through Unicode explicit overrides or a
higher-level protocol such as text-direction mark-up is not only an adequate
way of producing such Theban text, but semanticly appropriate since it encodes
the *decision* to use RTL.
With Theban transcription of Hebrew what should be done would depend on whether
the author was using Theban as a cipher of Hebrew, or was transliterating into
Latin and then using Theban as a cipher of this. In either case, and with
either directionality, Unicode provides character semantics for Latin, Hebrew
and directional overrides that can adequately encode the text.
Futhark is a LTR script, though there are examples of RTL Futhark, both
from "traditional" use (e.g. in the Franks Casket) and in occult use (it's an
occult convention to mirror the second rune of a double-constonant, I use this
though I have no idea if this practice is traditional or a recent invention,
and I neither care nor expect Unicode to care either way).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 07:07:34 EST