re: Roman numerals

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Feb 23 2010 - 13:28:04 CST

  • Next message: spir: ""scripting units" vs "scripting bits""

    Re: Philippe's response:

    > >>>> 2010/02/18 19:09 +0100, verdy_p >>>>
    > My feeling is that Roman numerals are only written with single letter
    > digits, and that all other numerals are just
    > precomposed for compatibility reason (notably JIS and other CJK encodings '
    > where they are encoded to be rendered in a single square).
    > <<<<<<<<

    Sándor Halász asked:

    > And therefore the Roman numerals at (decimal) 8544 through 8555 and
    > 8560 through 8571 are of Japanese origin?

    Not of Japanese *origin*, as others have pointed out.

    Rather, the result of compatibility encoding with East Asian national
    standards (and vendor character sets) from China, Japan, *and* Korea.
    In particular, you can find the compatibility Roman numerals in:

    Code Page 932 (Japanese) i..x (FA40..FA49), I..X (FA4A..FA53) (and
                                several other locations, as well)
    Code Page 936 (S. Chinese) I..XII (A21F..A2FC)

    Code Page 949 (Korean) i..x (A5A1..A5AA), I..X (A5B0..A5B9)

    And each of those vendor pages is, in turn, partially based on a
    national standard. (JIS X 0208, GB 2312, KS X 1001)

    As to why the Japanese and the Korean standardizers encoded Roman numerals
    one through ten, while the Chinese encoded one through twelve, you'll
    have to ask them.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 23 2010 - 13:34:31 CST