Hi Phillipe,
ONE+TEENS (1E8C7,1E8D0) is definitely the number 11
A.
On 10 Jun 2016 4:53 pm, "Philippe Verdy" wrote:
> Given that there's no digit for zero, you need to append combining
> characters to digits 1-9 in order to multiply them by a base
> 10/100/1,000/10,000/100,000/1,000,000. The sy
I do not contest that about number 11, and it was not the question !
The question was about number **10**:
* ONE+TENS or ONE+TEENS ?
This is NOT specified clearly in TUS Chapter 19 which speaks about numbers
1-9 then 11-19 for TEENS, and TENS for numbers 20-99.
The question is the same about 110,
I'd agree that it is likely ONE+TENS.
Looking at the original proposal and articles on the number system it
was originally 1-9, 10, 11-19, 20-99 etc
But became 1-9, 11-19, 20-99, etc during the deliberations on the model the
numbers would follow.
A.
At least thats how I reconstrct it from
The original proposals inluded a specific numbr 10 codepoint. I assume it
was removed and its representation was to be generated by use of the
combining characters
In the original proposal there was nothing corresponding to ONE+TENS
instead there was a distinct number TEN. The glyph for number 10
If you look at the documents archived for 2012
(http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13001-register-2012.htm), you will
find, beyond the Mende proposal
(http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12023-n4167-mende.pdf), several
documents by Deborah Anderson focused on the problem of the encoding
model Mende N
I can reread the doc several times (I did not read it precisely before) and
in fact Chapter 19 is absolutely not clear at all.
OK, represents 11, but is not
clearly represents 10, and the proposals do not exhibit 10 with the same
glyph as PU (even if it is based on it, in fact the combining TENS
Le 10/06/2016 18:05, Philippe Verdy a écrit :
OK, represents 11, but is
not clearly represents 10, and the proposals do not exhibit 10 with
the same glyph as PU (even if it is based on it, in fact the combining
TENS is a small subscript glyph variant of letter/syllable PU intended
to mark
2016-06-10 18:43 GMT+02:00 Frédéric Grosshans
:
> Le 10/06/2016 18:05, Philippe Verdy a écrit :
>
>>
>> OK, represents 11, but is not
>> clearly represents 10, and the proposals do not exhibit 10 with the same
>> glyph as PU (even if it is based on it, in fact the combining TENS is a
>> small s
Hi Phillipe,
On Saturday, 11 June 2016, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> OK, represents 11, but is not
clearly represents 10, and the proposals do not exhibit 10 with the same
glyph as PU (even if it is based on it, in fact the combining TENS is a
small subscript glyph variant of letter/syllable PU int
How does one represent the values 100 and 1000 in Mende Kikakui? Is it
not with ONE + HUNDREDS and ONE + THOUSANDS respectively?
If so, then how is encoding 10 as ONE + TENS any different? Am I
missing something?
--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
On 6/10/2016 2:59 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
How does one represent the values 100 and 1000 in Mende Kikakui? Is it
not with ONE + HUNDREDS and ONE + THOUSANDS respectively?
If so, then how is encoding 10 as ONE + TENS any different? Am I
missing something?
Nope, you got it right: 10 = <1E8C7, 1E8D
We encoded MYANMAR LETTER WA and MYANMAR DIGIT ZERO separately because the
latter is used in decimal arithmetic, which is essential and well supported by
computers.
Mende Kikakui has no ZERO. This is a fault, and they would do well to devise
one. An oval with a line through it like Ø would do.
On 10 Jun 2016, at 23:20, Ken Whistler wrote:
>
> On 6/10/2016 2:59 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>> How does one represent the values 100 and 1000 in Mende Kikakui? Is it
>> not with ONE + HUNDREDS and ONE + THOUSANDS respectively?
>>
>> If so, then how is encoding 10 as ONE + TENS any different? Am I
On 6/10/2016 3:23 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
Mende Kikakui has no ZERO. This is a fault, and they would do well to devise
one. An oval with a line through it like Ø would do. But they don’t have this.
I concur with that. If the users of this system decide that they want to
have a decimal rad
On Saturday, 11 June 2016, Ken Whistler wrote:
>
> I disagree about that. There is no reason to depart from the logic of the
system for this one value. Add one ligature glyph to your font for the
sequence for 10, and you're done.
>
>
There is the logic of how kikakui numbers are encoded in Unicod
On 10 Jun 2016, at 23:34, Ken Whistler wrote:
> On 6/10/2016 3:23 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>> Mende Kikakui has no ZERO. This is a fault, and they would do well to devise
>> one. An oval with a line through it like Ø would do. But they don’t have
>> this.
>
> I concur with that. If the users
On 6/10/2016 5:34 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
There are two few descriptions of the system for me to be definitive
but the number ten seems hold a unique position within the
numeral system.
As does the number 10 in every decimal numeral system. ;-)
But that doesn't automatically requir
I am not suggesting it needs to be encoded. And I did suggest that using
the digit one and the symbol for tens was an option.
It can be done via a ligature. It would have to be a required ligature.
Since other ligature types may or may not be enabled in various contexts.
And we dont want default s
On 11 Jun 2016, at 02:47, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> It can be done via a ligature. It would have to be a required ligature. Since
> other ligature types may or may not be enabled in various contexts. And we
> dont want default substitution and mark positioning to generate a
> non-ligature equ
rlig is the quickest and easiest approach. But in theory could be done
other more complicated ways.
There are currently no opentype implementations that I know of. And no
known shapers. rlig hopefully works with general shapers. But what what ot
features will be expected by script specific shaper
20 matches
Mail list logo
