Re: Roman Numerals (was Re: Improper grounds for rejection of proposal N2677)

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Fri Oct 28 2005 - 13:27:06 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Roman Numerals (was Re: Improper grounds for rejection of proposal N2677)"


    > 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 intent.

    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