W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [css3-ruby] [css3-text] Position values and before/after definitions in LR vertical writing mode

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:42:01 +1100
Message-ID: <4CAB00F9.9010500@css-class.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
CC: Ishii Koji <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, "btmnk0825@gmail.com" <btmnk0825@gmail.com>
Stephen Zilles wrote:
> Koji-san,
>   The point that I was making in an earlier message is that (at least traditionally) vertical Classical Mongolian script is a lefthand rotation of a semitic RTL script. That would mean that the "underline" position is on the right (as is the "after" edge.) I do not know, however, how Mongolian readers currently view this. I did distribute an example which shows an emphasis line on the right. What I do not know is whether a Mongolian reader would see that as an "underline", an "overline" or would find neither term to be very helpful. I believe you were going to check that with a Mongolian expert. It is certainly an "underline" in the original semitic horizontal RTL script.l
> 
> So, in short, no I do not yet agree with you table for the reasons above.
> 
> Steve Zilles


I agree with Koji's reasoning. What you state above with "vertical
Classical Mongolian script is a lefthand rotation of a semitic RTL
script rotation of a semitic RTL script" is wrong. So in turn, your
assumption for the line-side which is on the right in vertical script
being the underline is wrong.

>From what I can ascertain, at one time during it development, the
inline progression was changed from running right to left (Map ttb and
rtl to lth) to left to right (Map ttb and ltr to htl). I presume it
was around the same time that the directionality of the language was
rotated 90 degrees clockwise. I find upon investigation this development.

Aramaic alphabet
Syriac alphabet
Sogdian alphabet (rotated 90 degrees clockwise) [1]
Old Uyghur alphabet
Mongolian script (around 1204 AD)


In your attachment and the sample script seen here [2] (with extract
below) the Cyrillic script runs with the same glyph orientation and
same inline progression as the Mongolian script.

  | For example, a primarily Mongolian document, which has
  | vertical lines stacking left to right, usually lays its Latin
  | text with the glyphs facing the right. This makes the text run
  | in the same inline progression as Mongolian and face the same
  | direction it does in other East Asian layouts (which have
  | vertical lines stacking right to left), but the glyphs are
  | facing the bottom of the line stack rather than the top,
  | something they wouldn't do in a primarily-English paragraph.


That last part is indicating English written like this (or if
vertical, rotated 90 degrees clockwise).

  the lazy fox.
  fox jumps over
  The quick brown


When Mongolian script changes direction (in some word processors) from
vertical to horizontal (rotating directionality 90 degrees
anti-clockwise) we have the same same glyph orientation and same
inline progression (LTR) but I assume the block progression changes
direction.


  The quick brown
  fox jumps over
  the lazy fox.


Is this correct Koji?


I would suggest that the western sense of underline was not even
conceptualize with Mongolian script until horizontal writing
(printing) was introduce.

This means that Koji is spot with over-line / side-line right.



1. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdian_alphabet#Structure>
2.
<http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-text/#logical-orientation>



-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:42:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:42:42 GMT