Re: compatibility features (was: Mende Kikakui Number 10)

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

Scheduling Public Reviews (was: Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10)

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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,

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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./

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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 +

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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.

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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,

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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 

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui 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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Mende Kikakui 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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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 >

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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