Re: Tally marks (was: Re: missing symbol?)

From: Richard Wordingham (
Date: Sat Feb 10 2007 - 14:55:25 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Autodetection of CP437 vs. Latin-1"

    Doug Ewell wrote on Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:17 PM
    Subject: Tally marks (was: Re: missing symbol?)

    >> And what about six to ten? I sometimes remember to stack them in pairs
    >> to simplify the conversion to decimal.

    > That would be a layout problem.

    The mark-up being?

    >> Are they definitely characters, rather than illustrations?

    > If the Aegean numbers from U+10107 through U+10133 are worthy of
    > encoding—and I'm not saying they aren't—then I would think the tally marks
    > fall into the same category.

    As presented in the code charts, the Aegean numbers under ten are not tally
    marks. You can't convert THREE to FOUR, FIVE to SIX, or SEVEN to EIGHT.

    On the subject of missing numbers, how is one supposed to write the Roman
    numeral that would have compatibility decomposition IIII? The obvious
    compatibility decomposition shows that it can't be a glyph variant of U+2163
    ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR - it has compatibility decomposition IV.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 10 2007 - 14:57:35 CST