On 2010/07/28 0:36, John Dlugosz wrote:
I can imagine supporting national representations for numbers for outputting
reports,
but I don't imagine anyone writing in a programming language would be compelled
to
type 四佰六十 instead of 560.
Well, indeed, I hope nobody would do that. 四佰六十 would
Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/25/2010 6:05 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
On 2010/07/26 4:37, Asmus Freytag wrote:
PPS: a very hypothetical tough case would be a script where letters
serve both as letters and as decimal place-value digits, and with modern
living practice.
Well, there actually is
On 2010/07/29 06:33, karl williamson wrote:
Is it the case that a sequence of just these characters, without any
intervening characters, and not adjacent to the special characters you
mention always mean a place-value decimal number?
One common counter-example would be 七五三 (Shichi-Go-San
On 2010/07/29 13:33, karl williamson wrote:
Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/25/2010 6:05 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Well, there actually is such a script, namely Han. The digits (一、
二、三、四、五、六、七、八、九、〇) are used both as letters and as
decimal place-value digits, and they are scattered widely, and
On 7/28/2010 10:13 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Sequences of numeric Kanji are also used in names and word-plays, and
as sequences of individual small numbers.
But the same applies to our digits. A very simple example is to use
them as a ruler in plain text:
1 2 3
karl williamson wrote:
Asmus Freytag wrote:
The situation is worse than you indicate, because the same characters
are also used as elements in a system that doesn't use place-value,
but
uses special characters to show powers of 10.
I would think I wouldn't support these numbers, since we
John Dlugosz writes
I can imagine supporting national representations for numbers for
outputting reports, but I don't imagine anyone writing in a programming
language would be compelled to type 四佰六十 instead of 560.
Especially since 四佰六十 is 460.
Raymond Mercier
Hi.
From: Mark Davis ☕ (m...@macchiato.com)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2010 - 14:13:22 CDT
I agree that having it stated at point of use is useful - and we do that in
other cases covered by stability clauses; but we can only state it IF we
have the corresponding stability policy.
Mark
. . .
C. E. Whitehead said:
I've not gone through many character charts though so I can't
really speak as an expert as you all can; sorry I've not gotten
to more; I will try to ...
For people who wish to pursue this issue further, the relevant
information is neatly summarized in the extracted
From: Kenneth Whistler (k...@sybase.com)
C. E. Whitehead said:
I've not gone through many character charts though so I can't
really speak as an expert as you all can; sorry I've not gotten
to more; I will
vanis...@boil.afraid.org wrote:
From: Kenneth Whistler (k...@sybase.com)
C. E. Whitehead said:
I've not gone through many character charts though so I can't
really speak as an expert as you all can; sorry I've
Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
From just a quick scan, it appears that they are currently all
contiguous within their respective groups. If we were to impose a
stability policy, it would be a constraint on the general_category:
we would not assign general_category=decimal_number to any character
the analogy to the existing such policies seems strained at best.
In practice this is what we do. I just don't think we need more rules.
There are many such policies: see
http://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value (or the
more accessible
On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 25 Jul 2010, at 02:02, Bill Poser wrote:
As I said, it isn't a huge issue, but scattering the digits makes the
programming a bit more complex and error-prone and the programs a little
less efficient.
But it would still *work*. So
I agree that having it stated at point of use is useful - and we do that in
other cases covered by stability clauses; but we can only state it IF we
have the corresponding stability policy.
Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:06, Asmus Freytag
On 7/26/2010 12:13 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
I agree that having it stated at point of use is useful - and we do
that in other cases covered by stability clauses; but we can only
state it IF we have the corresponding stability policy.
Mark,
The statement in your but clause really isn't correct.
Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/25/2010 6:05 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
On 2010/07/26 4:37, Asmus Freytag wrote:
PPS: a very hypothetical tough case would be a script where letters
serve both as letters and as decimal place-value digits, and with modern
living practice.
Well, there actually is
Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
the analogy to the existing such policies seems strained at best.
In practice this is what we do. I just don't think we need more rules.
There are many such policies:
see http://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value (or
the more
accessible
Kent Karlsson kent.karlsso...@telia.com wrote:
Den 2010-07-25 03.09, skrev Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com:
On 25 Jul 2010, at 02:02, Bill Poser wrote:
As I said, it isn't a huge issue, but scattering the digits makes the
programming a bit more complex and error-prone and the programs
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Kent Karlsson kent.karlsso...@telia.com wrote:
Den 2010-07-25 03.09, skrev Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com:
On 25 Jul 2010, at 02:02, Bill Poser wrote:
As I said, it isn't a huge issue, but scattering the digits makes the
programming a bit more complex and
The short answer to Karl's question is that there will not be an
absolute guarantee.
The long answer is that, partly for the reasons he's mentioned, this
won't be a practical problem.
A. Most of the living scripts that are in wide use have been encoded,
including whatever digits are in use.
to propose stability policy on numeric type = decimal
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Kent Karlsson kent.karlsso...@telia.com wrote:
Den 2010-07-25 03.09, skrev Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com:
On 25 Jul 2010, at 02:02, Bill Poser wrote:
As I said, it isn't a huge issue, but scattering
From: cewcat...@hotmail.com
To: pub...@khwilliamson.com; verd...@wanadoo.fr
CC: kent.karlsso...@telia.com; unicode@unicode.org
Subject: RE: Reasonable to propose stability policy on numeric type =
decimal
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:24:01 -0400
On 2010/07/26 4:37, Asmus Freytag wrote:
PPS: a very hypothetical tough case would be a script where letters
serve both as letters and as decimal place-value digits, and with modern
living practice.
Well, there actually is such a script, namely Han. The digits (一、二、
三、四、五、六、七、八、九、〇) are
On 7/25/2010 6:05 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
On 2010/07/26 4:37, Asmus Freytag wrote:
PPS: a very hypothetical tough case would be a script where letters
serve both as letters and as decimal place-value digits, and with modern
living practice.
Well, there actually is such a script, namely
From: karl williamson (pub...@khwilliamson.com)
Date: Sun Jul 25 2010 - 17:00:14 CDT
. . .
From: cewcat...@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:24:01 -0400
. . .
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:43:11 -0600
From: pub...@khwilliamson.com
. . .
Prudence would dictate,
What would the problems be of having a stability policy in regards to
assigning characters to have numeric type = decimal, something like the
following:
New scripts or forms (like mathematical mono space) that have decimal
numbers will be assigned so that those decimal numbers occupy at least
On 24 Jul 2010, at 20:34, karl williamson wrote:
What would the problems be of having a stability policy in regards to
assigning characters to have numeric type = decimal, something like the
following:
New scripts or forms (like mathematical mono space) that have decimal
numbers will
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
Digits can be scattered randomly about the code space and it wouldn't make
any difference.
Having written a library for performing conversions between Unicode
strings and numbers, I disagree. While it is not all that
On 7/24/2010 3:00 PM, Bill Poser wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
Digits can be scattered randomly about the code space and it wouldn't make any
difference.
Having written a library for performing conversions between Unicode
strings
Michael Everson wrote:
On 24 Jul 2010, at 23:00, Bill Poser wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
Digits can be scattered randomly about the code space and it wouldn't make any
difference.
Having written a library for performing conversions
On 25 Jul 2010, at 01:34, karl williamson wrote:
the proposal did not ask for ones at one or eights at eight. It asked for
contiguity. Why is this ad odds with common sense and practical
code-position assignment?
It is unnecessary to make a rule about it.
Michael Everson *
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bill Poser billpos...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: ? Reasonable to propose stability policy on numeric type = decimal
To: Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Michael Everson ever
Bill,
Michael is no programmer, hence he doesn't have first hand understanding why
programmers distiguish between character set mapping (normally requiring
look-up tables) and digit conversion (normally done by offset calculations).
That said, there are enough programmers on the committees
On 25 Jul 2010, at 02:02, Bill Poser wrote:
As I said, it isn't a huge issue, but scattering the digits makes the
programming a bit more complex and error-prone and the programs a little less
efficient.
But it would still *work*. So my hyperbole was not outrageous. And nobody has
actually
Michael, what you are also probably not realizing is that the request is not
for *all* numbers, but for decimal numbers (general_category=decimal_number)
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[:general_category:decimal_number
:]
From just a quick scan, it appears that they are
36 matches
Mail list logo
