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 printed page, I would say the answer is yes. And even if you're in the habit of reading inscriptions directly from stones in field or churchyard then you probably tilt your head sideways to read them LTR anyway. > Still mysterious is the question of whether vertical Ogham columns should > be laid out L2R or R2L across the page. I suppose the inscriptions > aren't really much help. I doubt that any of the inscriptions are long enough to warrant multi-line presentation on a full screen or page. If there were any long inscriptions I personally would format them in LTR rows. > > I think my point was that a plain text editor that claims to handle > Mongolian had better be able to rotate the text to vertical orientation, > or the users will discard it for one that doesn't give them sore necks > (which is not at all the case with one claiming to handle Ogham). > Hmm, you're right, and that's something that has been nagging me for some time now. > 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? No idea. I've never tried such an experiment, and I can't read any RTL scripts. Andrew
