Addressed in the Ethiopic Layout Requirements (http://w3c.github.io/elreq/) is the equivalency of the two comma symbols "፥" and "፣" where some evidence points to "፣" as a default form by virtue of greater observed frequency. Though this may be a subject of debate by stakeholders.
It occurred to me recently that of the Ethiopic punctuation in Unicode (፡ ፦ ፥ ፣ ፤ ፧ ። ፨ ፠) they all feature symmetry about the horizontal axis (top half mirrors bottom half). True for all save for "፣" -which is curious since it has a fully symmetrical alternative form in "፥".
An argument could made that "፥" is the better default comma glyph since it exhibits the inherent horizontal symmetry characteristic found in all other punctuation. I'm just offering this as food for thought. I would be interested if anyone has grown up with the view (consciously or unconsciously) that punctuation is innately symmetrical.
[from @dyacob]
Addressed in the Ethiopic Layout Requirements (http://w3c.github.io/elreq/) is the equivalency of the two comma symbols "፥" and "፣" where some evidence points to "፣" as a default form by virtue of greater observed frequency. Though this may be a subject of debate by stakeholders.
It occurred to me recently that of the Ethiopic punctuation in Unicode (፡ ፦ ፥ ፣ ፤ ፧ ። ፨ ፠) they all feature symmetry about the horizontal axis (top half mirrors bottom half). True for all save for "፣" -which is curious since it has a fully symmetrical alternative form in "፥".
An argument could made that "፥" is the better default comma glyph since it exhibits the inherent horizontal symmetry characteristic found in all other punctuation. I'm just offering this as food for thought. I would be interested if anyone has grown up with the view (consciously or unconsciously) that punctuation is innately symmetrical.