Michael Everson wrote, > Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the > Phoenician encoding?
The proposed PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TWENTY is actually a ligature of two PHOENICIAN NUMERAL TENs and should be encoded as: TEN plus ZWJ plus TEN Treating such ligatures properly, that is -- using ZWJs, would allow as yet unattested Phoenician numerals, like the NUMERAL THIRTY ligature, to be expressed in plain text without having to wait for the approval of new characters. Also, certain processes should ignore the ZWJs in order to assure that searching for the number 'thirty' would find both the ligated numeral and the identical number represented in the conventional fashion in plain text. Furthermore, the ligation approach eliminates problems caused if we want to have numerals appear in the charts in ascending order and we've failed to leave any open slots in the charts for this purpose. Of course, none of the above is actually serious, but since Michael has requested comments more than once (or there's an echo on the server), I thought I'd start the ball rolling, as it were. Seriously, are there any problems with the Phoenician numerals? Any controversy? Any links for suggested further reading? Best regards, James Kass
