Re: numeric properties of Nl characters in the UCD

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Tue Nov 25 2003 - 14:10:28 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Normalisation stability, was: Compression through normalization"

    The fields are the way they are for backwards compatibility. If you look at the UCD.html, you will see that the actual properties are separated:

    http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UCD.html#Numeric_Type

    I'd like to remind people again that you should read the documentation in UCD.html before trying to make sense of the raw data files.

    Mark
    __________________________________
    http://www.macchiato.com
    ► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
     
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Arcane Jill
      To: unicode@unicode.org
      Sent: Tue, 2003 Nov 25 02:42
      Subject: RE: numeric properties of Nl characters in the UCD

      Actually, I don't understand why UnicodeData.txt has no less than three different fields for numerical value anyway. I mean, it's not as though there exists EVEN A SINGLE CODEPOINT for which two or more of these fields exist and are defined differently from each other. One never sees, for example, a character for which "digit value" is 3 and "numeric value" is 4. It seems to me that one single numeric field would suffice.

      You may need a second field to establish what "kind" of number this is (decimal digit, whatever), but then maybe you could figure that out from the general category anyway.

      Jill

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:verdy_p@wanadoo.fr]
    > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:58 AM
    > To: Unicode@Unicode.Org
    > Subject: numeric properties of Nl characters in the UCD
    >
    >
    > I do understand why number letter characters with "Nl"
    > general category
    > don't have a "decimal value" property or a "integer value"
    > property, but why
    > they don't all have a "numeric value" property in the UCD.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 25 2003 - 15:00:42 EST