the committee.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â
- Original Message -
From: "Dominikus Scherkl (MGW)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri, 2004 May 28 07:50
Subject: Re: [BULK] - Re: Vertical BIDI
> > As things now stand, Ogham must be wrapped in RLO...PDF brackets when
> > mixed with vertical Han or Mongolian.
>
> Yes, that's true -- and I don't see any reason why people can't live with
> that... Those are the kinds of reasons we have the explicit controls.
But the Problem was: wraped wit
On Fri, 28 May 2004 06:51:27 -0700, "Mark Davis" wrote:
>
> > As things now stand, Ogham must be wrapped in RLO...PDF brackets when
> > mixed with vertical Han or Mongolian.
>
> Yes, that's true -- and I don't see any reason why people can't live with
> that... Those are the kinds of reasons we h
Mark Davis scripsit:
> > As things now stand, Ogham must be wrapped in RLO...PDF brackets when
> > mixed with vertical Han or Mongolian.
>
> Yes, that's true -- and I don't see any reason why people can't live with
> that... Those are the kinds of reasons we have the explicit controls.
Because h
licit controls.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Mike Ayers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Th
Mark Davis scripsit:
> What the Bidi Algorithm says both of these is at:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/#Vertical_Text
However, it does not specify the treatment of Ogham embedded in TTB
text, since Ogham is the only script with both a required horizontal
direction (LTR) and a required v
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: Vertical BIDI
ï
There are two things someone could mean by 'vertical
bidi':
a. mixing lines of different direction.
b. as Mike says, within a vertical line, mixing characters of
different directionality.
What the Bidi Algorithm says both of these is
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: Vertical BIDI
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of fantasai
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:41 PM
> Since this interests me a bit more than the Phoenician thread...
> What do you consider vertical bidi, and why shou
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Elaine asked:
This is a shortcoming in Unicode BIDI: it currently
only represents horizontal directionality, not
vertical directionality. As far as I
So, does this mean that in 3 years there might be
vertical bidi?
No.
Since this interests me a bit more than the
Philippe Verdy recently said:
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What's uncertain is whether a lr or a rl progression is favored, given the
> > paucity of evidence. Michael favors lr progression. There is no question
> > that the text is read BTT.
> This creates an interesting problem: Put in the
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> The only thing that is certain is that Ogham must be rendered BTT in
> vertical contexts. For Ogham text in isolation this is fairly easy to
> accomplish by simple rotation, and one could expect "writing-mode
> : bt-rl" or "writing-mode : bt-lr" to accomplish this in a C
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The difficulty arises when Ogham is mixed with vertical Han or with
> Mongolian, since once the basic directionality becomes vertical, the
> tendency to read the Ogham BTT will become automatic. This is analogous
> to the problem that fantasai has pointed o
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> Come on, people. Read the standard, please. It's on page 338.
Michael is absolutely right to rebuke me for not reading the Standard. Of course
I have read the Ogham block intro before, and no doubt that is where I got the
notion of rendering Ogham BTT from, but I had fo
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> > In fact no; both Mongolian (or Manchu, which is unified with it in
> > Unicode) and Chinese are written TTB.
>
> Then, why did you say that:
>
> > What's uncertain is whether a lr or a rl progression is favored,
> > given the paucity of evidence. Michael favors lr p
John Cowan wrote:
When Mongolian stands alone, the columns progress from left to right,
> but when it's mixed with Han, the columns progress from right to left,
> as is the case with Chinese alone.
Actually, it depends on which language is the primary language. If the
primary language is Mongolian,
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> This creates an interesting problem: Put in the same sentence Han
> (Chinese) and Mongolian words in a vertical layout (I don't think this
> is unlikely, as Mongolian is also spoken in China, and there's also
> a Chinese community in Mongolia). So Chinese ideographs will
e
vertical direction of the same flow... We could define basically a similar
algorithm for vertical BiDi, but this would also require new BiDi properties.
This is what I've tried to argue, but for different script combinations than
you are describing here: the directions of Mongolian and Han do
ould be presented horizontally with lr
direction, like with Latin, there's a problem.
So what is shown here is that Bidi properties are only accurate for horizontal
flows of text. What is missing is a separate set of Bidi properties for the
vertical direction of the same flow... We could define
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> It does ? I thought that the whole point of much of the recent discussion was
> the uncertainty of how Ogham should be laid out in vertically formatted text,
> such as when embedded in Mongolian or vertical Chinese.
What's uncertain is whether a lr or a rl progression i
At 04:49 -0700 2004-05-18, Andrew C. West wrote:
But what is this preferred vertical orientation of Ogham that you
speak of ? Is it specified in the Unicode Standard ? And if not,
should it be ?
Come on, people. Read the standard, please. It's on page 338.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typograph
On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:59:50 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>
> It should not. That's what makes Ogham different from standard
> horizontal scripts -- it does have a preferred vertical orientation,
It does ? I thought that the whole point of much of the recent discussion was
the uncertainty of how Ogh
> > Not sure, but I had understood that bopomofo i (which is just one
> > stroke) was rotated when vertical.
>
> Correct.
Are you sure about that?
I've actually never seen plain bopomofo used in vertical text. But if
bopomofo characters are used as Chinese furigana (to explain the
pronounciati
> > >Also, it's not just punctuation marks that need to get vertical glyphs
> > >in vertical formats, it's also things like BOPOMOFO LETTER I.
> >
> > Are you sure you're not confusing that with the KATAKANA-HIRAGANA
> > PROLONGED SOUND MARK?
>
> Not sure, but I had understood that bopomofo i (w
fantasai scripsit:
> If another style rule changes the block progression to rl, what should
> happen to the Ogham? Should it now go top to bottom?
It should not. That's what makes Ogham different from standard
horizontal scripts -- it does have a preferred vertical orientation,
and because turni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fantasai scripsit:
(context: http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-bidi )
Notice that in B, the Chinese and the English are going
in opposite directions, even though they're both LTR scripts.
That's because the English is rotated and the Chin
fantasai scripsit:
> (context: http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-bidi )
>
> Notice that in B, the Chinese and the English are going
> in opposite directions, even though they're both LTR scripts.
That's because the English is rotated and the Chine
Elaine asked:
> > This is a shortcoming in Unicode BIDI: it currently
> > only represents horizontal directionality, not
> > vertical directionality. As far as I
>
> So, does this mean that in 3 years there might be
> vertical bidi?
No.
--Ken
>
> I once
E. Keown wrote:
fantasai wrote:
This is a shortcoming in Unicode BIDI: it currently
only represents horizontal directionality, not
vertical directionality.
So, does this mean that in 3 years there might be
vertical bidi?
I once met a guy from Nashua who told me that his
research group (HP
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
> This is a shortcoming in Unicode BIDI: it currently
> only represents horizontal directionality, not
> vertical directionality. As far as I
So, does this mean that in 3 years there might be
vertical bidi?
I once met a guy from Nashua who tol
Andrew C. West wrote:
Again, if you take the text out of the
presentational context you've warped it into, it doesn't make any sense.
To my way of thinking, if a text (such as an Ogham inscription) was originally
written vertically bottom to top, it makes just as much sense to render and read
it R
Ernest Cline wrote:
Only because of the way that Unicode handles vertical scripts by
assigning them a LTR direction and leaving it up to higher
levels to make the perpendicular flip. If someone wanted to include
a vertical snippet of Ogham in a top to bottom script, they might
desire to have the Og
first two sections of
http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-bidi
for a brief intro. I'll try to write up something more Unicode-oriented
this week.
No, I am not asking for vertical text controls; that's what CSS's
'block-progression' prop
32 matches
Mail list logo
