From: Luke-Jr (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Aug 15 2010 - 15:17:53 CDT
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