From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 22:34:29 CDT
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> At 18:53 16/06/2005, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> Check into "Quoted-Printable" format, also base64 encoding, UTF-7,
>> and uuencode for that matter. People have been using formats of that
>> sort to encode non-ASCII text for quite some time.
> Sorry, I was not clear enough. I am looking for tables, practices, ..
> permitting to number from 0 to 36 in different scripts. I suppose that
> in most decimals (except 0 in a few cases?) are OK but what about the
> G-Z(11-37) sequence. I suppose that Hexa are supported by most
> scripts, what can give a starting point? But is there some adopted
> practice/suggestion for G-Z? In google hexatridecimal has not many
Very few people work in bases higher than 16, but occasionally I've seen
people do so and use G-Z for things like that. I did it myself, in a
library for my HP-48G calculator for higher bases. And then after Z it
goes to lowercase a-z, I think. This is not necessarily a Good Idea.
Given that A-F is pretty well-known, G-Z is likely to be understood. In
Latin, of course, even as A-F are in Latin.
At any rate, this isn't a Unicode topic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 16 2005 - 22:36:33 CDT