On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:36:29 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> What about a cell phone or PDA for use in China. Some users may prefer
> vertical display of text, but then the system needs to know what to do
> with Latin etc text embedded in the Chinese. Isn't that a credible
> scenario? Or are the C
On 24/03/2004 17:40, Doug Ewell wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
And surely Braille could equally be considered a cipher of Latin
script (although the same symbols are also used as a cipher of other
scripts).
... which is one reason it can't be considered just a cipher of Latin.
-Doug Ewell
Ful
On 24/03/2004 15:08, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
Let me rephrase it: I don't think I know of a scenario where it is
critical for a resource limited device to support the selection of
vertical
vs. non-vertical display of text.
Unless there is some such scenario, there's no need to even speculate
ab
Ernest Cline scripsit:
> And dhat's wot stans in dhee way uv spelling reeform.
No, Regularized Inglish is perfectly practical, which is why I sed
that Axel Wijk rules. Keep a few pronunciations ov each sound
and regularize away the rest, and yoo get a sensible spelling reform.
--
John Cowan <[
> [Original Message]
> From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
>
> > It ought to be spelled: HuhRODuhduhs
>
> But those d's aren't diaphonematic. My correspondent's a Brit, and
> he spotted the error immediately, because of course there's no
> neutralization for him.
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> It ought to be spelled: HuhRODuhduhs
But those d's aren't diaphonematic. My correspondent's a Brit, and
he spotted the error immediately, because of course there's no
neutralization for him.
Axel Wijk rulez.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ccil.org/
Peter Kirk wrote:
> And surely Braille could equally be considered a cipher of Latin
> script (although the same symbols are also used as a cipher of other
> scripts).
... which is one reason it can't be considered just a cipher of Latin.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphi
Tom Gewecke wrote:
I believe CSS 2 includes writing-mode top-to-bottom right-to-left, but last
I checked only Win IE 6 could do it.
Last time I checked, Win IE 6 took notice of the CSS markup and
displayed the text wrong, while all other web browsers ignored the CSS.
Stefan
> Herotodos - 17 hits
> Herodotos - 8,730 hits
> Herotodus - 528 hits
> Herodotus - 165,000 hits
And don't forget:
Herodatus - 168 hits
Heradotus - 14 hits
Heradatus - 7 hits
Herotadus - 1 hit
Which I guess only further demonstrates how worthless English
orthography is after the Great Vowel Shi
On 24/03/2004 12:31, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
Besides, this is really a very, very marginal concern. All real world
exemplars of boustrophedon are *not* bidirectional text, and all
real world exemplars of bidirectional text are not laid out in
boustrophedon. Why? Well, because it would be a st
At 02:58 PM 3/24/2004, Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Am 2004-03-23 20:23 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> I don't think I know of a scenario where it is crtical for a
> resource limited device to display the kinds of texts you list
> below.
Reading the font data and processing it into a display representation
poses
On 24/03/2004 14:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
Ernest Cline wrote:
It also doesn't account for boustrephedon writing direction either.
^
boustrophedon
Ah well. I once referred to
Regarding the use of "higher level protocols" to deal with the complex
issues of vertical layout, the CSS 3 text module may be of interest:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/
I believe CSS 2 includes writing-mode top-to-bottom right-to-left, but last
I checked only Win IE 6 could do it.
Peter Kirk recently said:
> It seems strangely inconsistent to me that Unicode has detailed controls
> for horizontal layout direction and the complex bidi algorithm, but has
> nothing for vertical layout. I can force Latin text to be rendered right
> to left or Hebrew left to right (although s
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> Ernest Cline wrote:
>
> > It also doesn't account for boustrephedon writing direction either.
> ^
> boustrophedon
Ah well. I once referred to Herodotos throughout a posting as Herotodos
(googli
Regarding Moon script... and Braille...
> And surely Braille could equally be
> considered a cipher of Latin script (although the same symbols are also
> used as a cipher of other scripts).
No, Braille is not a cipher of any other script. It is *not* simply
one-to-one mappable to/from the Lat
> [Original Message]
> From: Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Is Moon Type in actual use, or just a historical curiosity? William
> Moon was a 19th century figure.
Yes, it is still in use, altho mainly in the UK. It is reportedly easier
for those who have lost their sight to learn Moon
Am 2004-03-23 20:23 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> I don't think I know of a scenario where it is crtical for a
> resource limited device to display the kinds of texts you list
> below.
Reading the font data and processing it into a display representation
poses the same resource costs for mirrored, rot
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Kenneth Whistler
> By the way, while Peter Constable noted that
>
> "the interaction of a boustrophedon with bidi is a valid issue."
>
> I would contend that that is at the higher level where bidi
> interacts with the line layou
On 24/03/2004 12:31, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
[1] http://www.bsblind.co.uk/full/moon/typeindx.htm
Is Moon Type in actual use, or just a historical curiosity? William
Moon was a 19th century figure.
The last section of "Moon, Matches and Microchips", accessible from
http://www.bsblind.co.uk
Am 2004-03-23 21:57 schrieb Ernest Cline:
> I suppose one could use the ECMA-48 / ISO 6429
> SPD (Select Presentation Direction) control sequence, but that
> is hardly plain text, altho it isn't quite markup either.
After having a glimpse on ECMA-48(Control Functions for Coded
Character Sets) I a
On 24/03/2004 11:53, Chris Jacobs wrote:
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. You are talking about the
direction of successive lines.
No, I am not.
I mean latin and hebrew in vertical layout, this happens if it is mixed with
han in vertical layout.
Latin is then rotated 90 degrees
On 24/03/2004 12:10, Ernest Cline wrote:
...
Actually, from what sources I've seen, while the Philippine scripts were
sometimes written as if they were bottom to top when using materials
other than paper, it was always read left to right. It was a case of it
being more convenient with the materi
At 13:55 -0500 2004-03-24, Ernest Cline wrote:
It is reasonable for Unicode to ignore boustrophedon at present
because it is not necessary for the scripts it currently supports and
it adds an extra and usually unneeded layer of complexity to the
bidirectional algorithm. If Unicode ever adds a bou
Chris Jacobs wrote:
I mean latin and hebrew in vertical layout, this happens if it is mixed with
han in vertical layout.
> Latin is then rotated 90 degrees clockwise, changeing it from top to
bottom.
> Hebrew is then rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise, changeing it also
from
> top to bottom.
No
Ernest Cline wrote:
> It also doesn't account for boustrephedon writing direction either.
^
boustrophedon
< Gr. strepho, but pf. estropha
Intentionally. That is an
At 15:10 -0500 2004-03-24, Ernest Cline wrote:
Actually, from what sources I've seen, while the Philippine scripts were
sometimes written as if they were bottom to top when using materials
other than paper, it was always read left to right. It was a case of it
being more convenient with the mater
> [Original Message]
> From: Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:09:11 +, "Michael Everson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > At 14:49 +0100 2004-03-24, Chris Jacobs wrote:
> > >Which scripts are written bottom to top in vertical layout?
> >
> > Ogham and sometime
> I think we are talking at cross purposes here. You are talking about the
> direction of successive lines.
No, I am not.
I mean latin and hebrew in vertical layout, this happens if it is mixed with
han in vertical layout.
Latin is then rotated 90 degrees clockwise, changeing it from top to bott
At 11:33 -0800 2004-03-24, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Also Numidian (if you count it seperate from Tifinagh),
I don't, not at this stage anyway.
and various scripts from the Philippines: Tagalog (and its
relatives) and Mangyan. The surviving Mangyan users seem to write
it left to right when usin
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:09:11 +, "Michael Everson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> At 14:49 +0100 2004-03-24, Chris Jacobs wrote:
> > > It seems strangely inconsistent to me that Unicode has detailed controls
> >> for horizontal layout direction and the complex bidi algorithm, but has
> >> nothi
> From: Ernest Cline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> However, for a
> boustrophedon only script such as Moon Code, it will prove needful
> to handle this in some manner, if for no other reason than to
determine
> how it would fit into the bidirectional algorithm.
Sure, the interaction of a boustrophe
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Well, surely there is at least in principle an ambiguity between
>
> D
> abc E
> F
>
> and
>
> abc
>
> D
> E
> F
Both are legible and have the same meaning. The issue of choice of presentation is out
of scope for Unicode.
Peter
Peter Co
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Michael Everson
> >Of course, boustrophedon layout isn't needed to ensure legibility of
> >Greek text; if it was, though, the solution would be to say that
correct
> >implementations of the Greek block required boustrophedon layou
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > From: Ernest Cline
>
>
> > It also doesn't account for boustrephedon writing direction either.
>
> Again, this is a presentation issue that doesn't require any new control
> characters. There is absolutely no reason, for insta
At 10:30 -0800 2004-03-24, Peter Kirk wrote:
I don't know of any scripts in which the ordering of lines is bottom to top.
Orkhon (Old Turkic).
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 24/03/2004 05:49, Chris Jacobs wrote:
It seems strangely inconsistent to me that Unicode has detailed controls
for horizontal layout direction and the complex bidi algorithm, but has
nothing for vertical layout. I can force Latin text to be rendered right
to left or Hebrew left to right (althou
On 24/03/2004 08:24, Peter Constable wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf
Of Peter Kirk
It seems strangely inconsistent to me that Unicode has detailed
controls
for horizontal layout direction an
From: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Which scripts are written bottom to top in vertical layout?
Latin is quite often written in that direction, after rotating the letters too.
See the many anotations or titles in books printed in the margin. OK this is not
a property of the script, but a pr
At 09:06 -0800 2004-03-24, Peter Constable wrote:
Of course, boustrophedon layout isn't needed to ensure legibility of
Greek text; if it was, though, the solution would be to say that correct
implementations of the Greek block required boustrophedon layout in the
app, and not addition of new contr
At 14:49 +0100 2004-03-24, Chris Jacobs wrote:
> It seems strangely inconsistent to me that Unicode has detailed controls
for horizontal layout direction and the complex bidi algorithm, but has
nothing for vertical layout. I can force Latin text to be rendered right
to left or Hebrew left to ri
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Ernest Cline
> It also doesn't account for boustrephedon writing direction either.
Again, this is a presentation issue that doesn't require any new control
characters. There is absolutely no reason, for instance, why an app
could
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 3/24/2004 2:35:50 PM
> Subject: RE: vertical direction control
>
> > Which scripts are written bottom to top in vert
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Peter Kirk
> It seems strangely inconsistent to me that Unicode has detailed
controls
> for horizontal layout direction and the complex bidi algorithm, but
has
> nothing for vertical layout.
The bidi embedding and overrides are ne
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Stefan Persson
> Unicode contains doubles of some CJK punctuation marks, one form for
> vertical layout and one for horizontal layout.
Only so for backward compatibility with legacy standards. For instance,
apart from legacy compa
> Which scripts are written bottom to top in vertical layout?
The Unicode bidi faq tells that ancient Numidian was written bottom to top,
and the Egyptian hieroglyphics could go basically in any direction. Then again,
it also says that developers shouldn't really worry overmuch about these.
> I
Mike Ayers wrote:
Do you have examples of cases where vertical control has
content? I thought there were no such cases known.
U+3031 and its voiced variant U+3032 are only appropriate to use in
vertical layout. These two characters are AFAIK only used in Japanese,
and the current recom
Chris Jacobs scripsit:
> Which scripts are written bottom to top in vertical layout?
The native direction of Ogham is bottom-to-top, although it is rotated
to left-to-right when it has to coexist with Latin.
There presumably is no traditional method of setting Ogham with
Han-influenced scripts,
> It seems strangely inconsistent to me that Unicode has detailed controls
> for horizontal layout direction and the complex bidi algorithm, but has
> nothing for vertical layout. I can force Latin text to be rendered right
> to left or Hebrew left to right (although such overrides are hardly
> pla
On 23/03/2004 18:09, Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Am Mittwoch 24 März 2004 00:09 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
Is somebody already using a PUA assignment for vertical text
direction controls?
I think the idea was that these don't belong in plain text.
Markup languages have had vertical layout contro
I can't imagine a situation where this would matter for plain text.
I suppose one could use the ECMA-48 / ISO 6429
SPD (Select Presentation Direction) control sequence, but that
is hardly plain text, altho it isn't quite markup either.
At 06:09 PM 3/23/2004, Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Am Mittwoch 24 März 2004 00:09 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> >Is somebody already using a PUA assignment for vertical text
> > direction controls?
> I think the idea was that these don't belong in plain text.
> Markup languages have had vertical layout control
Title: RE: vertical direction control
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Thomas Kuehne
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:09 PM
> For CJK, old European in-scripts and especially Egyptian hieroglyphs
> it would be good to have a common control
Am Mittwoch 24 März 2004 00:09 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> >Is somebody already using a PUA assignment for vertical text
> > direction controls?
> I think the idea was that these don't belong in plain text.
> Markup languages have had vertical layout controls forever.
The problem arose at very resou
At 02:55 PM 3/23/2004, Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Is somebody already using a PUA assignment for vertical text direction
controls?
from http://www.unicode.org/faq/bidi.html#1
> [...] the choice of vertical layout is usually treated as a
> formatting style; therefore, the Unicode Standard does not define
55 matches
Mail list logo
