From: Ernest Cline (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 21:34:01 EDT
> [Original Message]
> From: Kenneth Whistler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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.
OK, typically symbols used with only one script share the same
Bidi class as the letters of the script, but I can reluctantly concede
based on the parallel with the East Asian divination symbols in
Unicode that they might deserve Bidi Class ON. As such, unless
someone can present evidence to the contrary, I can understand,
and even applaud an unwillingness to change the Bidi Class to L.
That'll make my Private Use proposal larger now that it needs to
accommodate Khmer Symbol-like characters. I don't hold any
great hopes for the proposal being accepted, but I figure the
smaller I can make it, the better chance that it will have.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 22:20:11 EDT