Re: Not all Arabics are created equal...

From: John Cowan (
Date: Tue Jul 11 2000 - 12:11:19 EDT

Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> > No, what I am trying to nail down is whether the LSD is represented
> > first in the Unicode datastream or last. European digits are represented
> > with the MSD first and the LSD last. What's the story with Arabic
> > digits? Without knowing that, I can't evaluate a string of Arabic
> > digits for value.
> Numbers in Arabic script are MSD first and LSD last when stored, MSD on
> the left end and LSD on the right end when displayed. If you want to
> evaluate a string of Arabic digits (U+0660..U+0669, and U+06F0..U+06F9)
> you've seen in a character stream for value, do the same as you do for
> normal European digits:
> U+0661 U+0662 = U+06F1 U+06F2 = U+0031 U+0032 = 12.

Okay, I now grasp that firmly. Now just what is the difference between the
(U+06F0 et seq.) other than glyph shape? The EASTERN ones are classed as "European
numbers" for bidi purposes, but I don't really understand the effect of that.


Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:05 EDT