Re: CSUR Tonal

From: Luke-Jr (
Date: Sun Aug 15 2010 - 15:17:53 CDT

  • Next message: Mahesh T. Pai: "Re: RIP standards - the new Indian Rupee sign on mobile handsets."

    About 2 weeks ago, the matter of whether Tonal digits 0-8 and 10 should be
    encoded independently from U+0030..U+0039 was debated. I don't feel there was
    a clear consensus in the end. Even if you don't have time to maintain CSUR at
    the moment, could you please simply give your opinion/decision on this matter
    so people can begin using Tonal numbers in documents without risking a change
    to the standardized PUA usage? Specifically:
    - Whether 0-8 should be encoded independent of U+0030..U+0038
    - If not, whether 10 should be encoded independent of U+0039



    On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 04:37:26 pm Luke-Jr wrote:
    > 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 : Sun Aug 15 2010 - 15:22:57 CDT