Rick McGowan Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:18 PM
> Bob Richmond discussed...
>
> > Recap. Michaels 'n1944' proposal for Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Unicode
> > (1999)
>
> Just FYI, the control codes were a rather controversial feature of that
> proposal. It would also be worth surveying (again) the use
Bob Richmond discussed...
> Recap. Michaels 'n1944' proposal for Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Unicode
> (1999)
Just FYI, the control codes were a rather controversial feature of that
proposal. It would also be worth surveying (again) the use of controls in
existing Egyptian implementations.
> I u
RE: Glyph Stance
- Original Message -
From: Mike Ayers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:12 AM
Subject: RE: Glyph Stance
> Thinking about script rotation generically fundamentally requires
> debating abstracts. Perhaps you would be better served by
> expres
Title: RE: Glyph Stance
> From: saqqara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:34 PM
> My original reply was about the question of ancient scripts that used
> alternate glyph poses - I suggested this issue is worth thinking about
> generically, not jus
Title: RE: Glyph Stance
My original reply was about the question of ancient scripts
that used alternate glyph poses - I suggested this issue is worth thinking
about generically, not just on a proposal by proposal basis for individual
scripts. As one of the small number actively working on
Title: RE: Glyph Stance
Hopefully this doesn't veer OT, but let's see if we have agreement or not...
From: saqqara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM
> In the case of Toys R Us, stating the R is incorrect is
> a value judgement..
Title: Re: Glyph Stance
From Mike Ayers: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:34 AM
> Nevertheless there is a case (however strong or weak) for
> Unicode admitting >
mirroring and simple rotation transformations. The phenomenon not only
> occurs in some ancient scripts but al
Title: Re: Glyph Stance
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of saqqara
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:34 AM
> Nevertheless there is a case (however strong or weak) for
> Unicode admitting
> mirroring and simple rotation transformations.
saqqara wrote:
Nevertheless there is a case (however strong or weak) for Unicode admitting
mirroring and simple rotation transformations. The phenomenon not only
occurs in some ancient scripts but also in modern Latin usage, most notably
in advertising. The fact that Old Latin already requests
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs give possibly the clearest exposition of what
is involved here. Glyph direction (almost) always followed the text
direction. RTL was the standard, but LTR sometimes where the purpose suited.
TTB commonplace. A monumental inscription may use all permutations. This
basic
At 12:19 PM 5/25/2004, Dean Snyder wrote:
Archaic Greek exhibits variable glyph stance, that is, glyphs can be
flipped horizontally or even vertically, usually dependent upon the
direction of the writing stream.
How should variable glyph stance for the same characters in the same
script be dealt wi
>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
>
Of Dean Snyder
>
Archaic Greek exhibits variable glyph stance, that is, glyphs can be
>
flipped horizontally or even vertically, usually dependent upon the
>
direction of the writing stream.
>
>
How should variable gl
Dean Snyder asked:
> Archaic Greek exhibits variable glyph stance, that is, glyphs can be
> flipped horizontally or even vertically, usually dependent upon the
> direction of the writing stream.
>
> How should variable glyph stance for the same characters in the same
> script be dealt with in Uni
13 matches
Mail list logo
