Re: Hexadecimal digits?

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 00:53:55 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ, CGJ and combination"

    Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:

    > From: "Simon Butcher" <pickle at alien dot net dot au>
    >> However personally, when dealing with a octet, or an arbitrary number
    >> of octets, I believe the byte-pictures would be much easier to deal
    >> with (especially when dealing with a lot of raw data).
    > Except that it would require 256 new codepoints, instead of just 6 for
    > the proposed HEX DIGIT characters.
    > ...
    > What you propose is NOT a complementary set of digits for base 16, but
    > a complete new set of numbers in base 256, so that a glyph like [00]
    > will be displayed instead of just 0 (this is a disunification of all
    > the existing ASCII digits, as if it was a new script using its own
    > numbering system)...

    The issue of encoding single hex digits and the issue of encoding "byte
    pictures" consisting of pairs of hex digits (enclosed in a box or
    something) are completely separate. One should not be imagined to be an
    alternative to the other.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 01:57:38 EST