From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 11:17:50 EST
From: <jon@hackcraft.net>
To: <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: Hexadecimal digits?
> > This doesn't actually close the door to radix-64 altogether - it just
> > means that digit 42 would have to be represented as (U+0032, PLUS_TEN,
> > PLUS_TEN, PLUS_TEN, PLUS_TEN).
>
> XXXXII? :)
" XXXXII " probably won't work as is: how do you create strings of digits
(i.e. numbers)?
But " XL2 " would work (using roman numeral as prefixes, and decimal
numerals to terminate every digit): "XL20X0" then means the three digits
sequence <42,0,10>, but " XL20X " is defective on the last digit.
Personnally I will easier something coded with a superscript leading decimal
number to explicitly encode the number of tens to add to the final decimal
digit glyph, where " ⁴20¹0 " also means the three digits sequence
<42,0,10>...
In addition it does not require encoding an infinite number of digits... And
there's no need of external markup to fix the semantic of digits in a
natural sort.
If one wants to align digits in a table with figure-width spacing, then he
can use a monospaced font to render the string "⁴2⁰0¹0" where each pair of
characters can become a single glyph in that font, possibly also with
ligation effects...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 12:24:15 EST