Re: numeric properties of Nl characters in the UCD

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Tue Nov 25 2003 - 19:16:15 EST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Compression through normalization"

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

    > There's still my unanswered question about the third numeric field not
    > filled for some numeric characters (notably Nl characters, i.e. number
    > letters).
    > I accepted the fact of being unable to define it for the "numerator
    > one less than the denominator", but the Latin Roman number 900 has NO
    > defined numeric value, and I don't see why. I would accept a rationale
    > based on contextual meaning of the number, where its actual value
    > changed between sources, but I don't think that the Roman 900 number
    > letter has another possible value than 900.

    Well, one reason could be that there is no such character. (Did you

    All the Roman numerals I can find in the standard, except U+2183 ROMAN
    NUMERAL REVERSED ONE HUNDRED, have a value in the "numeric value" field.
    (Perhaps the actual numeric value of U+2183 is not known.) To derive
    the numeric value of the combination U+216D plus U+216F, one would have
    to apply the rules of Roman numerals, which is why these aren't digits.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 25 2003 - 20:01:42 EST