From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 2:49 PM Subject: RE: Hexadecimal digits?
> > This doesn't actually close the door to radix-64 altogether - it just > > means that digit 42 would have to be represented as (U+0032, PLUS_TEN, > > PLUS_TEN, PLUS_TEN, PLUS_TEN). > > XXXXII? :) " XXXXII " probably won't work as is: how do you create strings of digits (i.e. numbers)? But " XL2 " would work (using roman numeral as prefixes, and decimal numerals to terminate every digit): "XL20X0" then means the three digits sequence <42,0,10>, but " XL20X " is defective on the last digit. Personnally I will easier something coded with a superscript leading decimal number to explicitly encode the number of tens to add to the final decimal digit glyph, where " â20Â0 " also means the three digits sequence <42,0,10>... In addition it does not require encoding an infinite number of digits... And there's no need of external markup to fix the semantic of digits in a natural sort. If one wants to align digits in a table with figure-width spacing, then he can use a monospaced font to render the string "â2â0Â0" where each pair of characters can become a single glyph in that font, possibly also with ligation effects...
