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, especially if the glyphs were to be reversed? -- "[T]he Unicode Standard does not encode John Cowan idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private http://www.ccil.org/~cowan use characters, nor does it encode logos http://www.reutershealth.com or graphics." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
