On 3 May 2012, at 17:35, Asmus Freytag wrote: > Well, it's an incomplete query and because of that, you will get an > incomplete result.
Oh, give over. > It may give an answer on what the preference would be in handling small marks > - under the assumption that characters were to be written upright. Yes, that's the question being asked. > But it would not give an answer to the underlying question, on whether such > upright rendering would be the default choice - whether in its own script > context, or whether in the context of inserting material (quotes) in other > writing systems that do use vertical layout and have a long tradition of > doing so. We already know that. Rotated Syllabics text is confusing and illegible. This follows directly from the structure of the script. > Likewise, I suspect, that no matter how you arrange it, stacked syllabics > will look odd enough that the natural way to render longer text that for some > reasons have to go vertically, would be rotated. I "suspect" otherwise. I know that un-rotated vertical Syllabics text maintains the basic shapes of the Syllabics characters, and is therefore more legible than rotated vertical Syllabics text, which automatically changes the readings of many syllabics syllables. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
