They are interchangeable in terms of meaning, but not in terms of layout
and flow. If there is precedent for a given codepoint to have alternate
glyphs when used in a LTR versus TTB flow, then that may suffice.
But not entirely. I have seen text that uses vertical-barred glyphs in LTR
and horizontal-barred ones in TTB and standalone-section-numbering, but I
have also seen pure-LTR text with horizontal-barred ones. I think simply
having two glyphs is the simplest. And it's only 20 codepoints.
Jameson
2013/7/2 Szelp, A. Sz. <a.sz.szelp_at_gmail.com>
> One never stops learning...
> I'd be very interested in the examples, especially in how far they are
> non-interchangeable.
>
> Thanks
>
> Szelp, André Szabolcs
>
> +43 (650) 79 22 400
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 2013/7/2, Szelp, A. Sz. <a.sz.szelp_at_gmail.com>:
>> > The question is, whether the two versions (horizontal and vertical) are
>> > warranted for or not.
>> > With my limited knowledge of the matter, I would believe only one set
>> to be
>> > encodable, the other being free / stylistic variation.
>>
>> I have examples of printed pages using both forms on the same page
>> non-interchangably, if that helps.
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Jul 02 2013 - 10:59:27 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jul 02 2013 - 10:59:28 CDT