On 6 August 2010 05:14, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > > What makes this troublesome for me is that, on the one hand, there are the > perfectly ordinary-looking 0 through 8, and on the other hand there are the > invented digits for 9 and 11 through 15, and then in the middle there's this > bizarre use of an ordinary 9-glyph to mean decimal 10. That's what messes it > up for me and makes me think the '9' isn't really a 9, and what the heck, > maybe none of the "ordinary" digits are what they appear to be, so let's > CSUR-encode all of them.
Looking at the examples shown on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom>, it seems to me that 0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15 are inverted or inverted+modified forms of the digits '7' through '1', so that there is some sort of imperfect bilateral symmetry on the clock and compass faces, with '0' and '8' as the axis of symmetry. Thus the '9' is an inverted '6' (as 16-6=10) not an ordinary '9'. So except for the odd glyph forms for 9, 11, 12 and 15 (would be be expected to be simple inversions of '7', '5', '4' and '1') it makes sense as a system to me. Anyhow, I do not think the ordinary digits '0' through '8' should be encoded in the CSUR. > I'd like some opinions on these "real" Unicode questions from some of > the experts who normally stay away from PUA issues, and especially > from the CSUR. I'm sure that Philippe will be more than happy to share some of his weighty opinions on this matter. Andrew
