"corwise "
I do know that it's generally considered that a dagger is hardest to grind, with both sides having to be made equally symmetrical to near perfection.
The lack of craftsmanship often gives rise to a less than perfect renditioning of producing classical features required in a dagger.
But to do it on purpose and call it a dagger would not do justice to the blade type.
It would however serve the purpose of any manufacturer to cut cost by making daggers less complex by doing away entirely the idea of creating perfect symmetrical sides.
For instance, a dagger-like knife with one spine and dual edges by creating a totally flat surface with no spine one the other.
(Thus creating a triangular cross section, instead of that of a diamond).
Unequal grinds produce with off-centered spines can only mean mismatched spines on both sides that would not meet up to its apex/point.
That produces a tip which could be slightly less fragile, but leaves me to wonder if it's possible to ever sharpen such an off-centered design with precision.
But I would go along with a with a v-cross section for a spear-point to produce a dagger-like blade (which technically cannot be termed a dagger).
More importantly, dual edges ought to have spines which are ground perfectly, so that each spine actually meets up to its apex, and that's no matter how a blade is designed to have "one edge bigger then the other".
I think "SDS" has given a great description of the effects of having just such an edge.
A choice of having different cutting angles for diffrent materials.
