Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote: > There's still my unanswered question about the third numeric field not > filled for some numeric characters (notably Nl characters, i.e. number > letters). > > I accepted the fact of being unable to define it for the "numerator > one less than the denominator", but the Latin Roman number 900 has NO > defined numeric value, and I don't see why. I would accept a rationale > based on contextual meaning of the number, where its actual value > changed between sources, but I don't think that the Roman 900 number > letter has another possible value than 900.
Well, one reason could be that there is no such character. (Did you mean U+1034A GOTHIC LETTER NINE HUNDRED?) All the Roman numerals I can find in the standard, except U+2183 ROMAN NUMERAL REVERSED ONE HUNDRED, have a value in the "numeric value" field. (Perhaps the actual numeric value of U+2183 is not known.) To derive the numeric value of the combination U+216D plus U+216F, one would have to apply the rules of Roman numerals, which is why these aren't digits. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
