From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 28 2005 - 13:27:06 CST
> The only approximate alternative is to not use the existing Roman numerals
> at all, and revert to Latin letters, and then use C, I, and OPEN O (which
> looks quite similar to the turned C, except that the serif on is missing on
> the bottom leg, when drawn with serif fonts),
It shouldn't be surprising that U+2183 ROMAN NUMERAL REVERSED ONE
HUNDRED looks *exactly* like a reversed C, because that is what it
Unlike the East Asian compatibility characters in the ranges
U+2160..U+217F, the ligated forms and the reversed C in the
range U+2180..U+2183 *are* intended for general use with the
Latin alphabet in forming the types of Roman numerals that you
are talking about.
> or to replace the sequence
> <I,TURNED C> by <D>, and possibly add joiner controls between them to
> request (and may be force) their ligature.
> So to represent 888,888, ...
Please recast this in terms of the characters encoded for such
high numeric value expressions, and you'd get much closer to
The convention of using rulings over strings of Latin letters
to indicate higher values should be handled by styles, rather
than by individual insertion of combining lines over single characters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 13:28:16 CST