From: Bill Poser (billposer2@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 24 2010 - 20:07:30 CDT
> Bill,
> Michael is no programmer, hence he doesn't have first hand understanding why
> programmers distiguish between character set mapping (normally requiring
> look-up tables) and digit conversion (normally done by offset calculations).
>
> That said, there are enough programmers on the committees so that scattered
> encoding of digits, while not prevented, is at least not the method of
> choice.
>
> The problem with making this a policy is that some scripts may not have a
> decimal place-value type number system (or such use is not documented) at
> the time of their encoding. That means, a digit zero may not be known or
> documented.
>
> However, a prudent encoding policy would be to leave a gap in that ca
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> Michael is no programmer, hence he doesn't have first hand understanding why
> programmers distiguish between character set mapping (normally requiring
> look-up tables) and digit conversion (normally done by offset calculations).
>
> That said, there are enough programmers on the committees so that scattered
> encoding of digits, while not prevented, is at least not the method of
> choice.
>
> The problem with making this a policy is that some scripts may not have a
> decimal place-value type number system (or such use is not documented) at
> the time of their encoding. That means, a digit zero may not be known or
> documented.
>
> However, a prudent encoding policy would be to leave a gap in that case,
> because there have been scripts for which use of a decimal place-value
> system was later discovered.
>
> A.
Yes, I agree. Most of the numerals work this way in spite of the lack
of a policy, and imposing such a policy may not be appropriate. I just
object to the notion that it would not be better if such a policy were
followed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 24 2010 - 20:09:22 CDT