On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 04:06:10 pm Kent Karlsson wrote: > I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though > 9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10. > That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from > the ordinary 0-9.
Well, I don't strongly care either way... the rationale that Tonal 0-8,9 weren't Nd sounded fine to me, but I don't know how that mismatch could adversely affect usage... Maybe Michael Everson is best suited to decide, since he makes the decision on CSUR approval?
