> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Christopher Fynn
> D. Starner wrote:
> >So are we going to encode the Japanese, Fraktur and Farsi scripts?
> >Users of those scripts have been told they can just use a different
> >font.
> >
> No - and no one is seriously proposi
D. Starner wrote:
Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Telling people who propose a script that they can "just use a
different font " could very easily contradict this stated goal.
So are we going to encode the Japanese, Fraktur and Farsi scripts?
Users of those scripts have bee
Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Telling people who propose a script that they can "just use a
> different font " could very easily contradict this stated goal.
So are we going to encode the Japanese, Fraktur and Farsi scripts?
Users of those scripts have been told they can just
John Hudson wrote:
I have been thinking today that part of the reason for the debate is
that Unicode has a singular concept of 'script', a bucket into which
variously shaped concepts of writing systems must be put or rejected.
I don't think there is anything conceptually wrong with the idea
John Cowan wrote,
> Is strong RTLness really required for PHOENICIAN WORD SEPARATOR? If not,
> it can be unified with MIDDLE DOT.
Doesn't PHOENICIAN WORD SEPARATOR have a unique meaning and
function which give it a separate semantic from MIDDLE DOT?
Further, don't some PH texts use the word s
Christopher Fynn wrote:
I find it interesting to compare the furore over the Phoenician
proposal with the total calm over the KharoááhÄ proposal [N2732] - an
archaic script in which some Sanskrit and Sanskritized GÄndhÄrÄ texts
occur.
Couldn't the same arguments the Semiticists who would unif
Mike Ayers wrote:
Ummm - let me get this right. Some people who are using these
characters tell us that they need to fundamentally distinguish them from
Hebrew characters, but that's not a good case.
As Ken pointed out, what has been expressed is a *desire* to distinguish in plain text,
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:46 AM
> Well, it would imply that texts using the same glyphs and in
> very nearly
> the same language woul
On 28/05/2004 04:25, Christopher Fynn wrote:
...
Dear Peter
Are there no non-Hebrew texts written in Phoenician (and the other
archaic scripts Michael's proposal folds with Phoenician)?
There are texts written with Phoenician glyphs which are technically not
Hebrew, but all (or at least nearly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
True. I am awaiting with great impatience the arrival of a
*comparative* text of the two Pentateuchs: Two columns, one MT, one SP,
(both in Square Hebrew, MT pointed), with differences printed in LARGER
LETTERS.
Do you mean that you ha
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
> True. I am awaiting with great impatience the arrival of a
> *comparative* text of the two Pentateuchs: Two columns, one MT, one SP,
> (both in Square Hebrew, MT pointed), with differences printed in LARGER
> LETTERS.
Do you mean that you have ordered this and act
Simon Montagu wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Just for some more confusion to add, I note that with the distaste
later Pharisaic Judaism had for the Old Hebrew script, there comes a
fairly well-accepted, if unsupportable, thesis that the Law was
actually *originally* given in Square Hebrew ("Assy
Peter Kirk wrote:
Square Hebrew and palaeo-Hebrew are used to write the same language
(e. g. Hebrew) with the same orthography. As there is no particular
encoding for palaeo-Hebrew, the very same text can be displayed in
either square Hebrew or palaeo-Hebrew without recoding it.
Dear Peter
Are
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Just for some more confusion to add, I note that with the distaste later
Pharisaic Judaism had for the Old Hebrew script, there comes a fairly
well-accepted, if unsupportable, thesis that the Law was actually
*originally* given in Square Hebrew ("Assyrian Script"), which
on 2004-05-27 08:13 Otto Stolz wrote:
Fraktur characters are not designed to be used in all upper-case text
as has been stated before, in this thread. Nobody is used to this sort
of pseudo script; hence, nobody will read it fluently.
This pseudo-script *is* used in southern California, by aficiona
Sorry, I promised I would stay out of this thread and all its spawn, but
since this isn't about Hebrew vs. Phoenician OR Fraktur vs. Antiqua...
Peter Kirk wrote:
> Well, I understand this as it is partly true of English as well. But
> surely German newspapers, like English language ones, regular
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
> Just for some more confusion to add, I note that with the distaste later
> Pharisaic Judaism had for the Old Hebrew script, there comes a fairly
> well-accepted, if unsupportable, thesis that the Law was actually
> *originally* given in Square Hebrew ("Assyrian Scri
James Kass wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote,
Well, maybe the rules changed with time. And there does seem to have
been a reluctance to write the name of God in the new-fangled Aramaic
square glyphs. But I'm sure that basically the copyists considered that
they were copying exactly the same string of c
Title: Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:10 PM
> From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This implies that readers are expected to
> > rea
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This implies that readers are expected to
> read upper case MORE easily than lower case, at least for short texts
> like headlines.
Not true. Capitals are used in head lines because they are easy to read only
when written with large fonts. For articles, rea
On 27/05/2004 09:54, Michael Everson wrote:
I am resigning my membership of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list until
further notice.
Part of my earlier reply to Michael:
Come on, Michael, fight this one out to the end like a man! You might
yet win.
Or accept a mediating position. Edit your proposal a l
Otto Stolz wrote at 5:13 PM on Thursday, May 27, 2004:
>I think that the case of old Phoenician vs. Hebrew is different, as
>there is no underlying common language and orthography...
Phoenician, Old Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite are dialects of the
same language, with the major orthographica
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:02 AM
> We should not be fighting our corners, but instead looking
> for a solution which is acceptable
On 27/05/2004 08:13, Otto Stolz wrote:
Hello,
I am German, and I read both Roman (Antiqua) and Fraktur equally
fluently. Hence I think, I have to correct some wrong claims
issued in this thread.
Peter Kirk wrote:
A. Most Germans read texts in upper case Latin characters fluently.
(assumed)
Wrong.
I am resigning my membership of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list until
further notice.
--
Michael Everson
On 26/05/2004 21:18, Dean Snyder wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote at 2:51 PM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
On 26/05/2004 13:54, Michael Everson wrote:
...
We have heard your arguments. We have weighed them. Unification has
lost. I believe that it is a foregone conclusion that Phoenician will
be sent
Hello,
I am German, and I read both Roman (Antiqua) and Fraktur equally
fluently. Hence I think, I have to correct some wrong claims
issued in this thread.
Peter Kirk wrote:
A. Most Germans read texts in upper case Latin characters fluently.
(assumed)
Wrong.
Texts in all upper-case Latin character
Dean Snyder wrote,
> Let me make something clear to everyone.
[A member from the opposing faction offers gratuitous damage control...]
The smileys in Peter's post seem properly placed.
The sentence,
>>> Dean and I are both looking for a compromise.
...may have had an infelicitous choice for on
Peter Kirk wrote at 2:51 PM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
>On 26/05/2004 13:54, Michael Everson wrote:
>> ...
>> We have heard your arguments. We have weighed them. Unification has
>> lost. I believe that it is a foregone conclusion that Phoenician will
>> be sent for ballot, though of course the
On 26/05/2004 13:54, Michael Everson wrote:
...
We have heard your arguments. We have weighed them. Unification has
lost. I believe that it is a foregone conclusion that Phoenician will
be sent for ballot, though of course the UTC and WG2 could decide
otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned, that's
There are a number of reasons why things are on
the Roadmap. Things that are on the Roadmap,
while not "guaranteed" encoding, are there based
on the expert opinion of the Roadmap Committee
(Ken, Rick, Michael), and are based on a
long-standing *assumption* that the scholarly
taxonomy of the w
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: Phoenician, Fraktur etc
> > ... The fact that this style of script was abandoned overnight and
> > other styles of Latin script used is a pretty clear
> indication that
> > they are the same script (unless you subscribe to
> Bormann'
On 26/05/2004 06:29, Christopher Fynn wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
If Fraktur and ordinary Latin are the same script, then it couldn't
be said that the Germans abandoned the Fraktur script after WWII.
Yet, that is what available references say did happen. Well, I
haven't checked, but I remember read
Peter Kirk a écrit :
If Fraktur and ordinary Latin are the same script, then it couldn't be
said that the Germans abandoned the Fraktur script after WWII. Yet,
that is what available references say did happen.
Fraktur was actually abandonned during the Nazi era. In an ordinance
dated 3/I/194
Peter Kirk wrote:
If Fraktur and ordinary Latin are the same script, then it couldn't be
said that the Germans abandoned the Fraktur script after WWII. Yet,
that is what available references say did happen. Well, I haven't
checked, but I remember reading this kind of thing.
Fraktur was dropped
Peter Kirk wrote,
> If I remember correctly, some modern Israeli coins have palaeo-Hebrew as
> well as Hebrew inscriptions. Just found the link: on 28th April Simon
> Montagu pointed us to http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/catal/c39.gif and
> http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/catal/c41.gif. But I also re
At 19:38 + 2004-05-22, James Kass wrote:
Michael Everson wrote,
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
The proposed PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TWENTY is actually a ligature of
two PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TENs and should be encoded as:
TEN plus ZWJ plus TEN
It may
Michael Everson wrote,
> Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
> Phoenician encoding?
The proposed PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TWENTY is actually a ligature of
two PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TENs and should be encoded as:
TEN plus ZWJ plus TEN
Treating such ligatures properly, that is --
From: "E. Keown"
> Elaine Keown
> Tucson
>
> Dear Bob Richmond:
>
> At last, a helpful suggestion!!!
>
> > 4. Many users of ancient scripts are not specialists
> > in all (or any) of the scripts they want to work
> > with. Software needs to recognise this and provide
>
> This i
"Patrick Andries" wrote
>
> If many Israelis may not be able to read Phoenician or Neo-Punic, it is
> not obvious to me that Phoenician or Punic scholars -- presumably the
> intended users of Phoenician/Canaanite -- do not read Square Hebrew. I
> have some testimony to the opposite : Lionel Galand
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Bob Richmond:
At last, a helpful suggestion!!!
> 4. Many users of ancient scripts are not specialists
> in all (or any) of the scripts they want to work
> with. Software needs to recognise this and provide
This is true---absolutely. But since all of
saqqara a écrit :
Unification of the Phoenician script with Hebrew would certainly
eliminate some short term problems - the Hebrew script is fairly well
supported nowadays among applications and we'd eliminate the Plane 1
issue. Terribly confusing to users however - the majority do not read
H
On Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:11 PM, John Jenkins wrote:
> You go down to your local cybercafe to read your email from your
> grandmother telling you all about your nephew's bar-mitzvah.
> Unfortunately, your local cybercafe has no modern Hebrew (or Yiddish)
> installed, but they *do* have a Phonec
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
I waited to respond to the remarks below until I
locked my flamethrower and grenades in the downstairs
closet.for several days.
Mark Davis wrote:
> 1. Michael has made some very good contributions to
> the work of script encoding,
I've come to appreci
Quoting "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Michael Everson scripsit:
>
> > TTB, not T2B, please. [...] BTT, not B2T, please.
>
> It would be a violation of my traditional cultural standards to use T
> instead of 2 for "to". Furthermore, using 2 prevents me from writing
> TBB and other
At 15:42 -0400 2004-05-17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
> TTB, not T2B, please. [...] BTT, not B2T, please.
It would be a violation of my traditional cultural standards to use T
instead of 2 for "to". Furthermore, using 2 prevents me from writing
TBB and other such horrors
Michael Everson scripsit:
> TTB, not T2B, please. [...] BTT, not B2T, please.
It would be a violation of my traditional cultural standards to use T
instead of 2 for "to". Furthermore, using 2 prevents me from writing
TBB and other such horrors.
> Ogham has LTR directionality when horizontal,
Ernest Cline wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Andrew C. West scripsit:
Thus, if "tb-lr" were supported, your browser would display the
following HTML line as vertical Mongolian with embedded Ogham
reading top-to-bottom, but in a plain text editor, the Mongolian and
Ogham would both read LTR, and everyone w
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> How can I get so much difference in Internet Explorer when rendering Ogham
> vertically (look at the trucated horizontal strokes), and is the absence of
> ligatures in Mongolian caused by lack of support of Internet Explorer or the
> version of the Code2000 font that I use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Am I right in thinking that in vertical layout, native R2L scripts
are displayed with the baseline to the right, and therefore not
bidirectionally? If so, does Unicode require a LRO/PDF pair around them
to do the Right Thing?
Both layouts are possible.
http://fantasai.
At 12:32 -0400 2004-05-17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew C. West scripsit:
I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm now suggesting that perhaps Ogham
shouldn't be rendered bottom-to-top when embedded in vertical text such as
Mongolian, but top-to-bottom as is the case with other LTR scripts
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> How can I get so much difference in Internet Explorer when rendering Ogham
> vertically (look at the trucated horizontal strokes), and is the absence of
> ligatures in Mongolian caused by lack of support of Internet Explorer or the
> version of the Code2000 font that I u
How can I get so much difference in Internet Explorer when rendering Ogham
vertically (look at the trucated horizontal strokes), and is the absence of
ligatures in Mongolian caused by lack of support of Internet Explorer or the
version of the Code2000 font that I use (I though I had the latest vers
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:32:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I follow you. The question is, then, whether T2B Ogham is legible or
> not to someone who reads B2T Ogham fluently -- unfortunately, your texts
> are all pothooks and tick marks to me.
>
If you're used to reading Ogham LTR on the p
Is your image of vertical text really showing a TB-LR layout? OK the text row is
top aligned on the left side, but I think strange that the editor uses a
scrollbar on the left instead of the right.
Well this is what appears also in Internet Explorer when rendering the HTML
version.
However I wonder
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm now suggesting that perhaps Ogham
> shouldn't be rendered bottom-to-top when embedded in vertical text such as
> Mongolian, but top-to-bottom as is the case with other LTR scripts such as
> Latin,
I follow you. The question is
John Cowan wrote:
>
> Andrew C. West scripsit:
>
> > Thus, if "tb-lr" were supported, your browser would display the
> > following HTML line as vertical Mongolian with embedded Ogham
> > reading top-to-bottom, but in a plain text editor, the Mongolian and
> > Ogham
> > would both read LTR, and eve
On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:12:50 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>
> Andrew C. West scripsit:
>
> > Thus, if "tb-lr" were supported, your browser would display the
> > following HTML line as vertical Mongolian with embedded Ogham reading
> > top-to-bottom, but in a plain text editor, the Mongolian and Ogham
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> Thus, if "tb-lr" were supported, your browser would display the
> following HTML line as vertical Mongolian with embedded Ogham reading
> top-to-bottom, but in a plain text editor, the Mongolian and Ogham
> would both read LTR, and everyone would be happy :
I don't know
From: "Dominikus Scherkl (MGW)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 2100="einundzwanzighundert"
> That's not a german word (although we speek of the
> "einundzwanzigstes Jahrhundert").
I learned it at school, and it's in my German dictionnary. Possibly not used in
regional variants, but my dictionnary really
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:15:55 +0100, Jon Hanna wrote:
>
> It seems to me that as far as Ogham goes the positioning of successive glyphs
is
> more comparable to the way a graphics program will position text along a path
> (allowing text to go in a circle, for example) than the differences between
>
> 2100="einundzwanzighundert"
That's not a german word (although we speek of the
"einundzwanzigstes Jahrhundert").
> for years or "zweitausendhundert" for cardinals;
zweitausendeinhundert
^^^
> 21000="einundzwanzigausend").
einundzwanzigtausend
^
Best regards,
--
Dominiku
It seems to me that as far as Ogham goes the positioning of successive glyphs is
more comparable to the way a graphics program will position text along a path
(allowing text to go in a circle, for example) than the differences between
LTR, RTL, vertical and boustrophedon scripts. The text isn't com
On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:14:50 -0400, fantasai wrote:
>
> That's a hack, not a solution.
There's a fine line between "hack" and "solution", and I'm not sure which side
of the line my proposed technique falls.
> Again, if you take the text out of the
> presentational context you've warped it into,
"Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought a lot of the hassle of the bidi algorithm was to handle
> interactions between RTL and LTR when they occur together (where do you
> break lines, etc).
I fully adhere to this view.
BiDi control is just there to manage the case where charact
I thought a lot of the hassle of the bidi algorithm was to handle
interactions between RTL and LTR when they occur together (where do you
break lines, etc).
~mark
Jony Rosenne wrote:
I think what confuses the issue it the misleading symmetry between the terms
LTR and RTL.
If Hebrew and Arabic we
Peter Kirk wrote:
> If we go down this road, perhaps we need to define an RTL version of
> Latin script with all glyphs rotated by 180 degrees, for support of
> text written or printed upside down. I am sure we can find examples of
> this if we look carefully. :-)
Courtesy of James Kass, last De
On 15/05/2004 03:37, Andrew C. West wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:44:10 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
You can't play around with Ogham directionality like that. Reversing
it makes it read completely differently! The first example reads
INGACLU; the second reads ULCAGNI.
Well I disagree. A
Andrew C. West wrote:
Also, note that the point of RTL Ogham is NOT to render it RTL per se, but as a
step towards rendering it BTT. A similar trick is used for Mongolian. In order
to get vertical left-to-right layout of Mongolian text (when no systems
currently support left-to-right vertical layou
From: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Jony Rosenne scripsit:
> >
> > > However, in Hebrew and Arabic, numbers are written left to right and so
> > > are Latin and other LTR script quotations. So RTL really means mixed
> > > direction, and the bidi alg
Chris Jacobs scripsit:
> So if people pronounce it as
>
> twenty-one
> esriem we achad
>
> then they probably indeed write the digit 2 first.
Indeed, but the difficulty is that various Arabic colloquials don't
agree on the order of pronouncing numbers -- and modern standard
Arabic uses the leas
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jony Rosenne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))
> Jony R
Jony Rosenne scripsit:
> However, in Hebrew and Arabic, numbers are written left to right and so are
> Latin and other LTR script quotations. So RTL really means mixed direction,
> and the bidi algorithm is there to handle it automatically with little user
> intervention.
BTW, Peter Daniels told
On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:44:10 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
>
> You can't play around with Ogham directionality like that. Reversing
> it makes it read completely differently! The first example reads
> INGACLU; the second reads ULCAGNI.
Well I disagree. As I said in the message, the RTL result
I think what confuses the issue it the misleading symmetry between the terms
LTR and RTL.
If Hebrew and Arabic were simply written from right to left there would be
no need for a bidi algorithm and the direction would be a simple
presentation issue.
However, in Hebrew and Arabic, numbers are writ
Kenneth Whistler a écrit :
[on slow implementation of some collations by certain manufacturers and
service providers]
And the answer is to democratize the approach.
I agree on the ideal solution, it has independently been mentioned to
some large manufacturer's technical respresentative who seem
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I didn't say it couldn't possibly done. But it IS too complex a
> situation for raw Unicode to handle, in general. Considering how weird
> some results come out with the normal bidi algorithm as it is,
> boustrophedon not something that should be han
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
> >Dean A. Snyder wrote,
> >
> >>The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
> >>do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
> >>Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
The trend for such systems is
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
> You only make a response regarding Google; but that is only one of the
> search engines; and it leaves issues with operating systems and database
> engines still unanswered.
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Tailoring
The entire report contains much useful information
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Mark wrote:
to put the various marks. The bidi algorithm is enough of a headache as
it stands, just trying to deal with RTL and LTR scripts and their
possible coexistence on a single line. Boustrophedon is far too complex
for it.
May be not.
[...example deleted...]
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a Ãcrit :
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
That's the question.
Since search engines li
Dean,
> >> > One normalization script could be used any number of times. Clip,
> >> >normalize, sort - repeat as necessary.
> >>
> >> Multiply that times the number of independent researchers and separate
> >> projects...
> >
> >... and you get a thousand different requirements, each of which
>
Michael Everson scripsit:
> >Which is as much to say that R2L Ogham is illegible. But is T2B Ogham
> >necessarily illegible, especially if the glyphs were to be reversed?
>
> Try it and see. ;-)
It's all Greek to me.
--
"How they ever reached any conclusion at all[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
is sta
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
> The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
> do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
> Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
That's the question.
Since search engines like Google survive based on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 8:08 PM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
>Dean A. Snyder wrote,
>> The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
>> do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
>> Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
>
>That's th
Mark wrote:
> to put the various marks. The bidi algorithm is enough of a headache as
> it stands, just trying to deal with RTL and LTR scripts and their
> possible coexistence on a single line. Boustrophedon is far too complex
> for it.
May be not.
Suppose you have to render the following text
At 15:14 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
>We have heard how many times that you already deal with multiple
>competing encodings - Unicode, web Hebrew, transliteration, etc. It is you
>who are ignoring the fact that killing the Phoenician proposal will not
>change that.
But its approval wi
Mike Ayers wrote at 11:13 AM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
>> Dean Snyder:
>> No, that is not the whole point - there is also the point
>> that 90% of our
>> work, which is done now by simple, default processes, would, all of a
>> sudden, require custom tailoring.
>
> So what you're telling us i
At 14:25 -0400 2004-05-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
You can't play around with Ogham directionality like that. Reversing
it makes it read completely differently! The first example reads
INGACLU; the second reads ULCAGNI.
Which is as much to say that R2L Ogham is illegib
Michael Everson scripsit:
> You can't play around with Ogham directionality like that. Reversing
> it makes it read completely differently! The first example reads
> INGACLU; the second reads ULCAGNI.
Which is as much to say that R2L Ogham is illegible. But is T2B Ogham
necessarily illegible, e
E. Keown wrote:
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Peter,
*plain text* standard is the bidirectional
algorithm, which sorts out how a (horizontal)
*line* of text is laid out when text of opposite
directions
In the 'old' Unicode 3.0 there was a one-line note on
doing boustrophedon ne
Title: RE: [BULK] - RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 5:05 AM
> Kenneth Whistler wrote at 2:50 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
>
> >
> >> >
> From: E. Keown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For a small percentage of early Semitics stuff, it
> would be convenient to be able to automatically
> reverse the direction in a database, so the retrieval
> algorithm could look at 'both directions.'
It's not clear to me what you have in mind. The di
You can't play around with Ogham directionality like that. Reversing
it makes it read completely differently! The first example reads
INGACLU; the second reads ULCAGNI.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 12:13 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 2:13 PM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
>At 08:05 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
>> Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
>> when what we do now works very well?
What you do now is translite
On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:43:53 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrew C. West scripsit:
>
> > In bilingual Manchu-Chinese texts, which were common during
> > the Manchu Qing dynasty [1644-1911], the text normally follows the Manchu
page
> > layout, with vertical lines of Manchu and Chinese inte
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Peter,
> > > *plain text* standard is the bidirectional
> > > algorithm, which sorts out how a (horizontal)
> > > *line* of text is laid out when text of opposite
> > > directions
In the 'old' Unicode 3.0 there was a one-line note on
doing boustrophedon n
Michael Everson wrote at 2:13 PM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
>At 08:05 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>> >> Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
>> >> when what we do now works very well?
>
>What you do now is transliterate Phoenician text into Hebrew or La
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> > A page that contained both Mongolian and vertical CJK might require
> > a vertical bidirectional algorithm, but AFAIK that question has not
> > yet arisen.
>
> I'm a little confused by the last sentence.
So was I.
> In bilingual Manchu-Chinese texts, which were com
At 08:05 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
>> Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
>> when what we do now works very well?
What you do now is transliterate Phoenician text into Hebrew or Latin.
>Nobody plans to take away your rights and ability to continue
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
