From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Tue Nov 20 2007 - 09:12:30 CST
Quoting Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>:
>> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
>> Behalf Of John Hudson
>
>
>> Given that the vertical Mongolian script evolved from a right-to-left
>> semitic script
>> rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise, it seems to me that the obvious
>> way to re-incorporate
>> the script in a right-to-left setting would be to rotate it back,
>> clockwise.
>
> If you were embedding Latin-script text in to a RTL script, would
> you write the Latin-script text RTL because the writing it derived
> from was that way?
>
> Doing what you suggest would present some implementation challenges:
> it means that an application needs to rotate each run of embedded
> Mongolian text 180¡ã.
>
> It also means that a trilingual reader that happens to known (say)
> Chinese and Arabic or English and Arabic as well as Mongolian will
> see Mongolian presented in opposite ways in polyglot text depending
> on which language it's combined with. I don't think that would be
> any more helpful for them than would be to present English RTL when
> embedded in Arabic.
>
> IMO, the established conventions for Mongolian embedded in
> horizontal come from the most common scenarios to date, embedded
> into Chinese or English, and the conventions are LTR or, in short
> runs, vertically, and I don't think embedding in Arabic or Hebrew
> should change that.
>
BTW Chinese can be written in almost any direction left to right,
right to left,traditionally vertically and even for example in a
square where the characters are either read clockwise or anticlockwise.
It is very difficult to predict how people write things.
Regards
John Knightley
>
> Peter
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 09:15:37 CST