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

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Feb 12 2007 - 02:03:33 CST

  • Next message: "Re: writing Chinese dialects"

    Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:

    >> You write it as <0049, 0049, 0049, 0049>. The Roman numerals in the
    >> U+2100 block that have compatibility decompositions are there only
    >> for round-tripping with legacy charsets, and should not be used in
    >> new text. This is a commonly misunderstood point.

    > Is your remark valid too for the less common roman numerals like
    > reversed c, special thousand ("squared bridge diacritic" which really
    > looks like counting rods), or five thousand? It may be true for the
    > basic set of Roman letters that should not be distinct from Latin
    > letters, but other numeral forms and diacritic forms are not encable
    > as the normal latin letters.

    Asmus is correct; my comment applied only to the characters with
    compatibility decompositions, which were the subject of Richard's
    question: "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." Reversed C and friends have no relation to this.

    Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 12 2007 - 02:06:19 CST