On 6/11/2016 8:25 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
«If you add a [compatibility] feature to match behavior
> [found] somewhere else [not in the Unicode standard],
> it rarely pays to make that perform "better", because
> it just means it's now different and no longer matches
> [the behavior to which
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 13:25:17 +1000, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> Marcel, it isn't so much that the conversation was exhausted, rather that
> the original question has been sufficienlty answered.
I understand the difference now. Anyway I didnʼt consider the issue as settled.
More, the Mende Kikaku
Marcel, it isn't so much that the conversation was exhausted, rather that
the original question has been sufficienlty answered.
A.
On Sunday, 12 June 2016, Marcel Schneider wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:25:39 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>>
>> Exactly, Unicode should not create its own logic
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:25:39 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> Exactly, Unicode should not create its own logic about scripts or numeral
> systems.
>
> All looks like the encoding of 10 as a pair (ONE+combining TENS) was a severe
> conceptual error that could have been avoided by NOT encoding "TEN
Note that this is most probably true for the encoding of 100 as
ONE+HUNDREDS, when HUNDREDS should be a regular number usable in isolation
without the leading ONE. Same thing about THOUSANDS and similar, all
encoded as combining characters; the name itself should not have taken the
plural.
I just
Exactly, Unicode should not create its own logic about scripts or numeral
systems.
All looks like the encoding of 10 as a pair (ONE+combining TENS) was a
severe conceptual error that could have been avoided by NOT encoding "TENS"
as combining but as a regular number/digit TEN usable isolately, and
On 6/10/2016 5:34 PM, Andrew Cunningham
wrote:
There is the logic of how kikakui numbers are encoded
in Unicode and there is the internal logic of the numeral system
itself. They are not necessarily the same.
This statement should be framed!
A./
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
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
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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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
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 🇺🇸
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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 system is then additive. I don't
know how zero is represented. Note that for base 10, when the first digit
is 1 (i.e. for number
Ok looking at issue again I guess the other alternative is to have a
discontiguous set of numbers. Represent 10 as U+1E8C7 U+1E8D1 and map it
within the font to the PU glyph.
And hope that font developers don't create a glyph based on shape of
U+1E8C7 and U+1E8D1, but PU instead.
Andrew
On Fri
Hi,
Currently I am doing some work on the Mende Kikakui script, and I was
wondering what the best way was to represent the number 10.
In the early proposals for the script there was a glyph and codepoint
specifically for the number 10. When the model for Mende Kikakui numbers
was changed before t
30 matches
Mail list logo
