and derivative?
I looked at the numeration systems in the recent final
Coptic proposal, but I saw nothing familiar
( http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2636.pdf ).
Thanks, Elaine
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
Thanks to Magda Danish and Mark Shoulson---
the numbers I vaguely remember from Egypt in 1995 are
indeed at U+0660 through U+0669.
Apparently the history of numeration in Egypt is
complicated.
I'm looking at Egyptian and other numbers borrowed
into
in the recent final
Coptic proposal, but I saw nothing familiar
( http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2636.pdf ).
Thanks, Elaine
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
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 such
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, it
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
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,
--
Dominikus Scherkl
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
LTR,
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 speaks
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
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
would
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 everyone would be
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
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
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
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 use
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
[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.
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 (I
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
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, and
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.
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 characters,
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
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
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 me
- 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 Rosenne scripsit:
However, in Hebrew and Arabic
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
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 algorithm is there to
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
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.
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org 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
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
On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:33:51 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's irrelevant. L2R and R2L scripts are often mixed in the same
sentence, whereas it's barely possible to mix horizontal and vertical
scripts on the same page; when it must be done, the vertical script
is generally rotated to
At 02:40 -0700 2004-05-14, Andrew C. West wrote:
(not that Ogham's strictly BTT, but it is largely BTT in monumental
inscriptions
I think it is always BTT in the inscriptions.
-- although for convenience it is almost always written LTR on paper
and on screen ... and even in the Unicode code
On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:09:19 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
At 02:40 -0700 2004-05-14, Andrew C. West wrote:
(not that Ogham's strictly BTT, but it is largely BTT in monumental
inscriptions
I think it is always BTT in the inscriptions.
My understanding is that when written along the
From: Andrew C. West [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(...)
As has been stated time and time again, mixing vertical and horizontal textual
orientation in the same document is beyond the scope of a plain text standard,
and rendering mixed horizontal/vertical text is certainly beyond the ability
of
any plain
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 common
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 near the
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 interleaved
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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 starkly
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...]
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 handled in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Peter Kirk scripsit:
I support Coptic disunification on the grounds that it was requested by
the user community. Initially I opposed Phoenician disunification
because there was no evidence of demand for it from users. As such
evidence has now been produced, I
be
no hard rules like always split or always join.
Nobody, neither Michael nor anyone else, ever advocates such a rule.
But that's what Patrick implied when he asked how you support the
Hebrew/Phoencian
unification and the Coptic/Greek unification, that such a rule exists.
Well, yes. But more
At 12:25 -0400 2004-05-13, Mr Kirk wrote:
I now support Phoenician disunification, according to Michael
Everson's proposal.
The Phoenician script was *never* unified with the Hebrew script by
UTC or WG2. It was mistakenly proposed to be unified; it is *that*
proposal which failed. It is an
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Kenneth Whistler:
Elaine wrote:
Are you opposed in principle to having small
encoded blocks which have multiple potential
directionalities?
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Yes.
The extent of directional layout required of a
*plain text* standard is
The extent of directional layout required of a
*plain text* standard is the bidirectional
algorithm, which sorts out how a (horizontal) *line*
of text is laid out when text of opposite directions
How did you decide that 'horizontal' is the default
direction? My impression is that 85
Elaine Keown continued:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Yes.
The extent of directional layout required of a
*plain text* standard is the bidirectional
algorithm, which sorts out how a (horizontal) *line*
of text is laid out when text of opposite directions
How did you decide that
E. Keown scripsit:
How did you decide that 'horizontal' is the default
direction? My impression is that 85 - 95% of *all*
elements of writing ever invented by humans are
Chinese (or other ..JKV...).
That's irrelevant. L2R and R2L scripts are often mixed in the same
sentence, whereas it's
At 13:44 -0700 2004-05-13, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
No and no. Hardware considerations for text layout became obsolete
with the appearance of the bit-mapped graphic screen display for
the Macintosh in 1984.
Boy is our work in its infancy yet.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
On 11/05/2004 05:44, Patrick Andries wrote:
Peter Kirk a crit :
And these two cases are hardly a good advertisement for the expert's
reputation. The Coptic/Greek unification proved to be ill-advised and
is being undone.
I'm rather surprised by this comment. If the Coptic/Greek unification
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org wrote:
Because each such case has to be judged on its individual merits,
according to proper justification and user requirements. There can be
no hard rules like always split or always join.
Nobody, neither Michael nor anyone else, ever advocates such a
Michael nor anyone else, ever advocates such a rule.
But that's what Patrick implied when he asked how you support the Hebrew/Phoencian
unification and the Coptic/Greek unification, that such a rule exists.
--
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
.
Nobody, neither Michael nor anyone else, ever advocates such a rule.
But that's what Patrick implied when he asked how you support the Hebrew/Phoencian
unification and the Coptic/Greek unification, that such a rule exists.
Well, yes. But more specifically why was the unification ill
Patrick Andries wrote, regarding the script identity issues:
Doug Ewell a écrit :
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org wrote:
Because each such case has to be judged on its individual merits,
according to proper justification and user requirements. There can be
no hard rules like always
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Kenneth Whistler:
down, but even for this, the edge cases result in
irreconcilable arguments: is Etruscan left-to-right
or right-to-left or both?
A lot of the really early Greek (on the true edge
between Phoenician and Greek) seems to be
Elaine asked:
A lot of the really early Greek (on the true edge
between Phoenician and Greek) seems to be
tetradirectional.or even pentadirectional.
Are you opposed in principle to having small encoded
blocks which have multiple potential directionalities?
Yes.
The Unicode Standard
E. Keown wrote:
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Kenneth Whistler:
down, but even for this, the edge cases result in
irreconcilable arguments: is Etruscan left-to-right
or right-to-left or both?
A lot of the really early Greek (on the true edge
between Phoenician and Greek) seems
Peter Kirk a crit :
And these two cases are hardly a good advertisement for the expert's
reputation. The Coptic/Greek unification proved to be ill-advised and
is being undone.
I'm rather surprised by this comment. If the Coptic/Greek unification
proved to be ill-advised how could you
Looks like we're gonna add another 40 characters for Coptic
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
I came across this standard at
http://www.copticchurch.net/coptic_fonts/alphabet.html
It appears to be standard that aims to make it possible
to represent Coptic with a standard 101 key keyboard
without having to do anything other than specify the font.
The standard is being promoted by the Coptic
At 00:01 -0800 2002-12-27, Asmus Freytag wrote:
At 10:09 PM 12/25/02 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
In fact the glyph for Kurdish Q often looks like a large q, similarly to
Cyrillic h; this is an inappropriate glyph for Latin Q.
This should be enough evidence. Any samples?
OK (assuming
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
In summary, with the information on capital q the score tends to even
out.
Asmus, c'mon this point system is utterly arbitrary.
Actually, while the actual assignment of points may be arbitrary and
personal, the *process* Asmus went
At 15:35 + 2002-12-28, John Clews wrote:
KU and WE were used by lots of languages, not just Kurdish by the way.
Ah - I hadn't realised that: what other languages do you recall?
Offhand I can think of Ossetian (1846-1923 orthography) and either a
Chechen or an Ingush orthography of the
At 10:09 PM 12/25/02 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
In fact the glyph for Kurdish Q often looks like a large q, similarly to
Cyrillic h; this is an inappropriate glyph for Latin Q.
This should be enough evidence. Any samples?
OK (assuming that this can be substantiated by samples) we now
On 2002.12.24, 20:01, Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Latin and Cyrillic Q
and W do not look noticably different, if at all, which means that the
even the (inadvertant) future use of Latin Q and W cannot be ruled
out, perpetuating the
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
Disunifying this belatedly in Unicode would introduce non-negligible data
conversion problems. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Latin
and Cyrillic Q and W do not look noticably different, if at all, which
means that the even the (inadvertant) future
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote:
In fact the glyph for Kurdish Q often looks like a large q, similarly to
Cyrillic h; this is an inappropriate glyph for Latin Q.
This should be enough evidence. Any samples?
roozbeh
Going back to a November 2002 posting, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Cowan writes:
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin scripsit:
The roadmap v3.5 http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-5.html , as
of 2002.04.04, refers for block U+2C00 - U+2C3F a formal proposal for
Coptic. Failing to access
At 11:44 + 2002-12-24, John Clews wrote:
However, just out of interest, is there a brief rationale from those
involved in UTC as to why that separation of Greek and Coptic is a
good thing
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2444.pdf
while any proposal to add a Cyrillic Q and W
At 12:54 PM 12/24/02 +, Michael Everson wrote:
At 11:44 + 2002-12-24, John Clews wrote:
However, just out of interest, is there a brief rationale from those
involved in UTC as to why that separation of Greek and Coptic is a
good thing
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2444.pdf
The roadmap v3.5 http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-5.html , as
of 2002.04.04, refers for block U+2C00 - U+2C3F a formal proposal for
Coptic. Failing to access the linked proposal right now, what is the
difference between this script and the coptic chars included in the
Greek block (U+0370 - U
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin scripsit:
The roadmap v3.5 http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-5.html , as
of 2002.04.04, refers for block U+2C00 - U+2C3F a formal proposal for
Coptic. Failing to access the linked proposal right now, what is the
difference between this script and the coptic
At 16:43 + 09/11/2002, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
The roadmap v3.5 http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-5.html , as
of 2002.04.04, refers for block U+2C00 - U+2C3F a formal proposal for
Coptic. Failing to access the linked proposal right now, what is the
difference between
Greetings,
To compose coptic numerals under Unicode I've applied the appropriate
lowercase letters in the Greek-Coptic range with the elements from the
Combining Diacritical Marks: U+0304, U+0331 and U+0347. I had no basis
to choose these diacritical symbols upon other than they seemed to get
- Message d'origine -
De : Daniel Yacob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings,
To compose coptic numerals under Unicode I've applied the appropriate
lowercase letters in the Greek-Coptic range with the elements from the
Combining Diacritical Marks: U+0304, U+0331 and U+0347. I had
Tuesday, May 22, 2001
My recollection is that assigning separate codes to all characters in
Coptic script rather than treating it as part of Greek script was under
consideration at one time. If so, is this effort's current status closer
85 matches
Mail list logo
