From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 12 2007 - 02:03:33 CST
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 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 12 2007 - 02:06:19 CST