From: gfb hjjhjh <c933103_at_gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:54:45 +0800

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:54:45 +0800

1. aren't the 'nut' style you said used in daily English too?

2.most of the time I seen fraction within Chinese text are in the 'nut'

style.

3. I think standards should noy be written in a way that users or

implementers cannot choose their preferred style to represent fractions?

2015年7月23日 上午6:58於 "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com>寫道：

*> > ...which brings us back to plain text fractions, which by an apparent
*

*> > but tacit convention we can input as an *unlimited* string of
*

*> > superscript digits, followed by U+2044, followed by an *unlimited*
*

*> > string of subscript digits. What are you referring to when talking
*

*> > about implementing the fraction slash?
*

*>
*

*> If you are happy with that style, I was wrong, I wasn't being clever
*

*> enough. In a left to right context, the conversion of digits to the
*

*> numerator and denominator forms can progress from right to left for the
*

*> numerator by conditioning on the following character being a fraction
*

*> slash or converted digit, and similarly from left to right for the
*

*> denominator. I'm not sure what should happen in right to left
*

*> contexts. I've a feeling the numerator should come before the
*

*> denominator, but the bidi algorithm doesn't swap them - it keeps the
*

*> first number on the left. Note that subscript and superscript digits
*

*> are only available for those of us who use the Western Arabic digits.
*

*>
*

*> However, I believe there is a real problem for the 'nut' style, where
*

*> the numerator and denominator are separated by a horizontal line - in
*

*> Western Asia westwards. I'm having trouble finding examples of
*

*> fractions using Indic scripts - apparently they originally stacked the
*

*> numerator above the denominator, but I don't know what happens nowadays.
*

*>
*

*> <snip>
*

Received on Thu Jul 23 2015 - 00:57:10 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Thu Jul 23 2015 - 00:57:12 CDT
*