Re: Display of Mongolian in Arabic or Hebrew documents
John Hudson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Peter Constable wrote: > I'm not sure why it would be considered questionable practice: There's no a priori requirement for how outlines need to be oriented in the design space, the history is not a determining factor... Indeed not. I'm not suggesting that the outlines should be laid out RTL instead of LTR. I'm saying that it is questionable -- i.e. not wrong, but something about which opinions might differ -- for a normatively *vertical* script to be designed as if it were horizontal. I say it is questionable because I have heard it questioned. :) >If the glyphs were drawn rotated 90° clockwise from this orientation, then a CJK-like transform would be needed for vertical layout, rotating each glyph 90° counter-clockwise. You mean for horizontal layout, don't you? In vertical layout, a vertically designed glyphs would be stacked, using something like the VORG table for heights to ensure proper connections. Moving on: accepting that an LTR layout model makes most sense for Mongolian script, in that it allows for both a reasonably simple vertical layout and for the more common instance of horizontal use, what would a user need to do if he did want RTL directionality e.g. embedded in an Arabic context? Is it possible at all? John Hudson -- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC [email protected] I'm like that Umberto Eco guy, but without the writing. -- anonymous caller