Re: Hexadecimal

From: Pim Blokland (
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 08:10:54 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Hexadecimal"

    I think Jill has a point.

    Kenneth Whistler wote:

    > Basically, thousands of implementations, for decades now,
    > have been using ASCII 0x30..0x39, 0x41..0x46, 0x61..0x66 to
    > implement hexadecimal numbers. That is also specified in
    > more than a few programming language standards and other
    > standards. Those characters map to Unicode U+0030..U+0039,
    > U+0041..U+0046, U+0061..U+0066.

    That's not a good reason for deciding to not implement something in
    the future.
    If everybody thought like that, there would never have been a

    Besides, your example is proof that the implementation can change;
    has to change. Where applications could use 8-bit characters to
    store hex digits in the old days, they now have to use 16-bit
    characters to keep up with Unicode...

    and Jim Allen wrote:
    > > What I mean is, it seems (to me) that there is a HUGE semantic
    > > between the hexadecimal digit thirteen, and the letter D.
    > There is also a HUGE semantic difference between D meaning the
    letter D
    > and Roman numeral D meaning 500.

    and those have different code points! So you're saying Jill is
    right, right?

    You seem to define "meaning" differently than what we're talking
    about here.
    In the abbreviation "mm" the two m's have different meanings: the
    first is "milli" and the second is "meter". No one is asking to
    encode those two letters with different codepoints!
    What we're talking about is different general categories, different
    numeric values and even, oddly enough, different BiDi categories.
    Doesn't that qualify for creating new characters?

    On a related note, can anybody tell me why U+212A Kelvin sign was
    put in the Unicode character set?
    I have never seen any acknowledgement of this symbol anywhere in the
    real world. (That is, using U+212A instead of U+004B.)
    And even the UCD calls it a letter rather than a symbol. I'd expect
    if it was put in for completeness, to complement the degrees
    Fahrenheit and degree Celcius, it would have had the same category
    as those two?

    Pim Blokland

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 16 2003 - 08:45:33 EDT