From: Andrew West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 06 2010 - 04:02:39 CDT
On 6 August 2010 05:14, Doug Ewell <email@example.com> wrote:
> What makes this troublesome for me is that, on the one hand, there are the
> perfectly ordinary-looking 0 through 8, and on the other hand there are the
> invented digits for 9 and 11 through 15, and then in the middle there's this
> bizarre use of an ordinary 9-glyph to mean decimal 10. That's what messes it
> up for me and makes me think the '9' isn't really a 9, and what the heck,
> maybe none of the "ordinary" digits are what they appear to be, so let's
> CSUR-encode all of them.
Looking at the examples shown on
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom>, it seems to me that
0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15 are inverted
or inverted+modified forms of the digits '7' through '1', so that
there is some sort of imperfect bilateral symmetry on the clock and
compass faces, with '0' and '8' as the axis of symmetry. Thus the '9'
is an inverted '6' (as 16-6=10) not an ordinary '9'. So except for the
odd glyph forms for 9, 11, 12 and 15 (would be be expected to be
simple inversions of '7', '5', '4' and '1') it makes sense as a system
Anyhow, I do not think the ordinary digits '0' through '8' should be
encoded in the CSUR.
> I'd like some opinions on these "real" Unicode questions from some of
> the experts who normally stay away from PUA issues, and especially
> from the CSUR.
I'm sure that Philippe will be more than happy to share some of his
weighty opinions on this matter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 06 2010 - 04:06:38 CDT