Re: (SC22WG20.1682) Tibetan half digits

From: Alain LaBont/e'/ (
Date: Thu Oct 24 1996 - 14:49:35 EDT

At 17:29 24/10/1996 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
>At 11:23 1996-10-24, Alain LaBont/e'/ wrote:
>>>There are pretty much two choices: give a numeric value (/3 = 2.5) or call
>>>it a variant (3-Tibetan-plain vs. 3-Tibetan-variant). The latter would be
>>>easier, but not so correct I think.
>>I would not do that.
>You would not do what? Sort give them a numeric value or call them variants
>of the Tibetan numbers (like Arabic-Indic and Extended Arabic-Indic)?

Give them a numeric value all = (1/2) less tahn each digit. I would not do
that automatically, without pre-handling. I would reserve that to the last
digit... and in the default just give them an order like normal digits, but
not intermixed with digits, which are ordered at the first level. Otherwise
we create even more confusion.

Sorry to have been ambiguous... your "The latter would be easier" was
ambiguous too, I don't know what you really meant.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:32 EDT