Re: The Bidi Class of the Khmer Symbols U+17F0 to U+17F9

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 20:25:10 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"

    > So my question is, is this Bidi Class of these numbers correct?

    As best we know.

    > Since their behavior when used with Khmer would be the same
    > as if they had been given Bidi Class L, if it is an error, it is
    > understandable how it could have escaped notice by the
    > users of this script. If it isn't an error, could someone please
    > explain why they are have class ON instead of class L?

    Because they were represented to the UTC as being a bunch of
    symbols, essentially.

    Keep in mind that these are not at all normal digits. They are
    exceedingly esoteric, and from the examples in the originating
    documents it isn't clear how they lay out with other *Khmer*
    characters, let alone any other script.

    It is quite likely that there exists no document on the planet
    which uses them in a bidirectional context, so your guess
    is as good as mine what the original users of these divination
    characters would have decided to do if faced with the task
    of having to write them in an Arabic document.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 20:59:53 EDT