From: CE Whitehead (cewcathar@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 19:41:37 CDT
Hi I tend to agree with the arguments of Doug and Hans.
From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 14:35:15 CDT
> "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:
>> Unicode has Roman numerals and bar counting (base 0); why should base 16 be
>> denied unique characters?
> The Roman numeral characters starting at U+2160 are compatibility
> characters. They exist in Unicode only because they existed in one or
> more of the other character sets used as a source for Unicode, so data
> can be converted between Unicode and the other set without loss.
> People aren't encouraged to use the special Roman numeral characters,
> but rather to write Roman numerals using Basic Latin letters. And yes,
> that means the string "mix" out of context could be an ordinary English
> word or the Roman representation of decimal 1,009. Plain text is full
> of things that get resolved by rudimentary context. Hexadecimal numbers
> are like that.
Yes, thanks, my feelings.
> A set of hex-digit glyphs like Nystrom's, or like Bruce Martin's (see
> Wikipedia "Hexadecimal"), or any other characters for that matter, would
> have to see much more popularity than this to be considered for formal
> encoding. If you are interested in a writing system that includes
> built-in support for hex digits, see
> http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/ewellic.html . But do not expect
> any part of this writing system, which has been used by maybe four or
> five people, to be a candidate for Unicode either.
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
From: Hans Aberg (haberg-1@telia.com)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 16:45:57 CDT
> On 4 Jun 2010, at 20:39, Luke-Jr wrote:
>> Unicode has Roman numerals and bar counting (base 0); why should
>> base 16 be
>> denied unique characters?
> Anyway, if you can show these John Nystrom Tonal System glyphs have
> been in textual use, perhaps they should be encoded.
Thanks. That's if they have been in textual use -- and sorry; I think it's necessary to use the characters you have developed in a small circle first somehow, then to propose their encoding in the unicode character sets.
Best wishes in any case,
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2010 - 19:44:38 CDT