From: Andrew West <andrewcwest_at_gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:09:49 +0000

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:09:49 +0000

On 18 March 2016 at 23:49, Garth Wallace <gwalla_at_gmail.com> wrote:

*>
*

*> Correction: the 2-digit pairs would require 19 characters. There would
*

*> be no need for a left half circle enclosed digit one, since the
*

*> enclosed numbers 10–19 are already encoded. This would only leave
*

*> enclosed 20 as a potential confusable. There would also be no need for
*

*> a left third digit zero, saving one code point if the thirds are not
*

*> unified with the halves, so there would be 29 thirds.
*

*>
*

*> And just to clarify, there would have to be separate half cirlced and
*

*> negative half circled digits. So that would be 96 characters
*

*> altogether, or 58 if left and right third-circles are unified with
*

*> their half-circle equivalents. Not counting ideographic numbers.
*

Thanks for your suggestion, I have added two new options to my draft

proposal, one based on your suggestion (60 characters: 10 left, 10

middle and 10 right for normal and negative circles) and one more

verdyesque (four enclosing circle format characters). To be honest, I

don't think the UTC will go for either of these options, but I doubt

they will be keen to accept any of the suggested options.

*> This may not work very well for ideographic numbers though. In the
*

*> examples, they appear to be written vertically within their circles
*

*> (AFAICT none of the moves in those diagrams are numbered 100 or above,
*

*> although some are hard to read).
*

I have now added an example with circled ideographic numbers greater

than 100. See Fig. 13 in

http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Unicode/GoNotation.pdf

In this example, numbers greater than 100 are written in two columns

within the circle, with hundreds on the right.

Andrew

Received on Sat Mar 19 2016 - 06:11:27 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Sat Mar 19 2016 - 06:11:27 CDT
*