From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 08:13:25 EST
On 11/11/2003 04:00, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> In fact, it might even be better, since it would allow things like
> (U+0661, DIGIT COMBINING LIGATURE, U+0669), which would make hex
> available to people who don't use the latin script. It would /also/
> allow extention to radix-64 and above. (Yes, I know I said above that
> I didn't think that was important, but if you get it for free, hell
> why not?).
> In short, I like your idea.
So, Jill, could you get much of what you want by encoding your hex
digits as ligatures between regular digits, e.g. <U+0031, ZWJ,
U+0030...0035>? They would have the properties of digits, and could be
tailored for collation, as contractions, where you need them. I'm not
sure why you suggest a special DIGIT COMBINING LIGATURE, why not just
use ZWJ? (Well, is it permitted to include ZWJ in a collation
contraction? There is a similar discussion re Persian.) And a font could
be designed to render these as hex digits, asą0 etc, or as flying pigs
as you prefer. And the advantage to you is that you can do this now, if
you define your own collation tailoring, and so you don't have to wait
for the UTC to accept a hex digit proposal, which I suspect they will do
only when they accept flying pigs.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 08:52:58 EST