Patrick riposted (<== note the French contaminating my English)
> >I don't buy the semantic argument. If it were valid, we would require
> >the Roman numbers as separate characters, because their semantics is
> >different.
> >
> But isn't this the case : U+2160..U+2183 ?
TUS 3.0, p. 299: "Number form characters are encoded solely for
compatibility with existing standards. The same considerations with
respect to compatibility apply as noted in the discussion of
letterlike symbols. ... The Roman numerals can be composed of
sequences of the appropriate Latin letters."
As Patrick knows, since he has translated the standard into French. :-)
--Ken
>
> Patrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jan 22 2002 - 20:24:14 EST