From: Alexej Kryukov (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Oct 28 2005 - 06:25:13 CST
On Thursday 27 October 2005 05:11, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Furthermore, the whole concept just isn't thought through.
> A-F have casepairs: a-f.
> It doesn't make any sense for hexadecimal digits, if they are
> really *numbers*, not letters, to have case pairs.
I am wondering why in this long thread nobody has mentioned the Roman
digits in U+216*--217*. They look quite similar to
hexadecimal digits, because they also have case pars and also are
normally represented with Latin letters. Moreover, I would understand
if only I, V, X, L, C, D and M were separately encoded, but currently
all Roman numerals from I to XII (and only these ones), which can
be composed from the characters listed above, also have separate
So I am just wondering, why these characters were encoded? Should
they be actually used to represent Roman numerals, or it is OK to
replace them with the corresponding Latin Letters? And how should
numerals above XII to be composed?
To my mind, these characters look quite strange, but, if encoding
them is considered correct, then the hexadecimal digits should be
encoded for the very same reasons...
-- Regards, Alexej Kryukov <akrioukov at newmail dot ru> Moscow State University Historical Faculty
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 06:25:51 CST