From: Luke-Jr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 16:37:26 CDT
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 04:06:10 pm Kent Karlsson wrote:
> I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
> 9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
> That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
> the ordinary 0-9.
Well, I don't strongly care either way... the rationale that Tonal 0-8,9
weren't Nd sounded fine to me, but I don't know how that mismatch could
adversely affect usage... Maybe Michael Everson is best suited to decide,
since he makes the decision on CSUR approval?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 16:39:39 CDT