From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Tue Nov 25 2003 - 19:16:15 EST
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
mean U+1034A GOTHIC LETTER NINE HUNDRED?)
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
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 25 2003 - 20:01:42 EST