From: CE Whitehead (cewcathar@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2010 - 20:30:12 CDT
From: Luke-Jr (luke@dashjr.org)
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
> Thanks,
> Luke
Hi! U039 is 9 not 10. So I don't see how it can be encoded as 10.
(Doug did reply to you by the way:
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2010-m07/0264.html
I can +1 his answer about whether or not an independent encoding of glyphs looking like 0030-0038 and 0039 is in order.)
Sorry, I cannot be more helpful. (I admit I have not taken much time with this proposal but I'd go ahead with it.)
Best,
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
----------------------------------------
> From: luke@dashjr.org
> To: everson@evertype.com
> Subject: Re: CSUR Tonal
> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:17:53 -0500
> CC: unicode@unicode.org
>
> 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
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
>
> 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 : Mon Aug 16 2010 - 20:37:17 CDT