<a bit tongue-in-cheek>
Perhaps the Ewellic forms should be used rather than risk the
possibility of being perceived as ASCII-centric?
All we'd need to do is wait for Doug Ewell to provide the glyphs for
hexadecimal digits ten through fifteen and wait for CSUR to assign
code points other than the former Shavian block.
As for input, these could be entered the same way any other Unicode
character is entered. Likewise for handling legacy conversions.
</a bit tongue-in-cheek>
As for existing ambiguity, perhaps style books should be strict with
hexadecimal notation. Unicode example: (畺) Always U+757A, never
U+757a (and never U+757А or other variations).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 00:26:31 EDT