From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 00:39:45 EST
Thomas Lotze <thomas dot lotze at uni dash jena dot de> wrote:
> So can it be summarized that figures (both arabic and latin) actually
> come in only one flavor (upper or lowercase), the other being a
> variant glyph, and both kinds of roman numerals being encoded for
> reasons other than their semantic meaning?
Both kinds of Roman numerals were encoded for one reason only:
compatibility with existing standards, as Ken mentioned.
> - As for arabic numerals, is there any convention which form (upper or
> lowercase) is meant by U+048..U+057, and which requires special
> treatment (variant selector)?
You cannot apply a variation selector (U+FE0x, or soon U+E01xx) to the
ASCII digits to request a different glyph, at least not until Unicode
explicitly defines such a variant sequence.
> - Should the two cases of roman numerals be distinguished by directly
> using the UVs of one form or the other, or is it, for the sake of
> consistency, preferrable to use UVs of only one of them (which?) and
> the same UVs with a variant selector for the other, the font mapping
> those variants to the other UV range?
Roman numerals should be encoded using the letters in the basic Latin
alphabet (upper- or lower-case). The only reason to use the characters
in the range U+2160 - U+217F is to maintain compatibility with East
Asian legacy standards. (The forms in the range U+2180 - U+2183 can be
useful for paleographic purposes or giggle value.) Again, you are not
permitted to invent your own variation-selector sequences.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 22 2002 - 01:17:20 EST