On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, John Cowan wrote: > Okay, I now grasp that firmly. Now just what is the difference between the > ARABIC-INDIC DIGITs (U+0660 et seq.) and the EASTERN ARABIC-INDIC DIGITs > (U+06F0 et seq.) other than glyph shape? The EASTERN ones are classed > as "European numbers" for bidi purposes, but I don't really understand > the effect of that. I really would have preferred them unified. They create problems when I try to explain the reason behind their existence to an Iranian developer. I have some examples for the difference being somehow necessary, but again they're not enough. --roozbeh
- Re: Not all Arabics are created equal... brendan_murray
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... Gregg Reynolds
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... John Cowan
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... Gregg Reynolds
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... John Cowan
- Re: Not all Arabics are created equal... Mark Davis
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... Roozbeh Pournader
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: Not all Arabics are created equal... John Cowan
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... Marco . Cimarosti
- Re: Not all Arabics are created equal... Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: Not all Arabics are created equal... Antoine Leca
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... Gregg Reynolds
- RE: Not all Arabics are created equal... Roozbeh Pournader

