**From:** Gregg Reynolds (*unicode@arabink.com*)

**Date:** Tue Aug 02 2005 - 19:33:19 CDT

**Previous message:**Gregg Reynolds: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**In reply to:**John Hudson: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**Next in thread:**Mark Davis: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**Reply:**Mark Davis: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

John Hudson wrote:

*> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
*

*>
*

*>> Adding to the already existing - what, 5? 6? - different ways of
*

*>> encoding each digit. Let's count the ways:
*

*>>
*

*>> 0030-0039 DIGIT ZERO etc
*

*>> 0660-0069 ARABIC-INDIC
*

*>> 06F0-06F9 EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC
*

*>> 0966-096F DEVANAGARI
*

*>> 09E6-09EF BENGALI
*

*>> 0A66-0A6F GURMUKHI
*

*>> 0AE6-0AEF GUJARATI
*

*>> Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Thai, Lao, Tibetan,
*

*>> Myanmar, Ethiopic, Khmer, Mongolian, Limbu, Osmanya, various
*

*>> mathematical digit characters, Japanese full-width, etc. etc. Twenty
*

*>> one and counting.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Most of which look different, some of which function differently (i.e.
*

*> use different counting systems that do not correspond to our decimal
*

*> digit system). I don't think there is any expectation that one would be
*

*> able to perform cross-script arithmetic using Mongolian and Ethiopic
*

*> numeral characters. What you are proposing is something quite other: two
*

*> ways of encoding the *same* numerals. Your new numerals would look the
*

*> same, represent the same numbers, need to be considered the same for
*

*> searches, sorts and mathematical functions. They would be, in fact, the
*

*> same characters encoded twice.
*

*>
*

Ok. I agree that is a valid observation. I think, anyway. I have to

ponder it a bit more. I think it depends on what the meaning of "same"

is. Aren't 0030-9 and 0660-9 really the "same"? My understanding of

unicode is that it doesn't address these semantics - 0-9 are just

characters, not mathematical signs. (The fact that the have "number"

property only means they all have the same formal category, not that

they denote mathematical values; it could just as easily have been

called the "fdsaflkh" property. It's up to a higher level protocol to

interpret "fdsaflkh" characters as mathematical signs.) Mathematically,

any characters that denote the mathematical values 0-9 may be considered

"the same", regardless of graphical form. The latter is a mere matter

of implementation (font) technology.

*> But this is the kicker, as already mentioned yesterday: *all* those
*

*> numerals characters you listed share the same directionality, and all
*

*> numbers in Unicode are encoded most-significant digit first. Maybe if
*

Well, typographically they are all LTR, but that is completely

orthogonal to encoding syntax (polarity). It occurs to me now that

you've put your finger on the problem. Which is, that these

"characters" should in fact be treated as characters, and not

mathematical signs, in order to be consistent (ha!) with Unicode

principles. Mathematical interpretation comes in at a higher

level protocol. This is consistent with Unicode design principles, as I

understand them. So assume that RTL 0-9 are just another set of

characters, w/out mathematical semantics, that all happen to have a

property called "number". They will be treated no differently than any

other RTL character w/r/t typesetting; w/r/t to math routines, they will

be treated no differently than any other "number" characters (math

routines must merely interpret polarity correctly.) In fact, there is

no need to stipulate any graphical form. (I note that MSWord happily

changes the form of numeric digit characters from European to Arabic

Indic based on user preferences. Does it change the underlying

encoding? Dunno, never checked.)

*> computing had been invented in the Middle East it would be the other way
*

*> around, with the least significant digit encoded first, and the various
*

*> standards would oblige all LTR writing systems to function
*

*> bidirectionally with regard to numerals.
*

But the point is that absolute directional is not the only design

choice. We would get along just fine with relative polarity (relative

to writing direction, that is.)

*>
*

*> Now, when it comes to things like parentheses, the mirrored stuff does
*

*> my head in and I really don't see the point of it. I'm guessing that it
*

*> confuses application developers also, since it is implemented with so
*

*> little consistency.
*

You can say that again. But in this respect Unicode is already

obsolete. The only justification I can see for ambiguous

directionality, mirroring, etc. is trying to save space (code space, I

mean). Fifty years from now (or ten?) chars will be 64 bits, with an

essentially infinite code space, so there will be no justification for

either unification or directional ambiguity.

-gregg

**Next message:**Mark Davis: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**Previous message:**Gregg Reynolds: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**In reply to:**John Hudson: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**Next in thread:**Mark Davis: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**Reply:**Mark Davis: "Re: Jumping Cursor. Was: Right-to-Left Punctuation Problem"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 19:34:04 CDT
*