1. aren't the 'nut' style you said used in daily English too? 2.most of the time I seen fraction within Chinese text are in the 'nut' style. 3. I think standards should noy be written in a way that users or implementers cannot choose their preferred style to represent fractions?
2015年7月23日 上午6:58於 "Richard Wordingham" <[email protected]>寫道： > > ...which brings us back to plain text fractions, which by an apparent > > but tacit convention we can input as an *unlimited* string of > > superscript digits, followed by U+2044, followed by an *unlimited* > > string of subscript digits. What are you referring to when talking > > about implementing the fraction slash? > > If you are happy with that style, I was wrong, I wasn't being clever > enough. In a left to right context, the conversion of digits to the > numerator and denominator forms can progress from right to left for the > numerator by conditioning on the following character being a fraction > slash or converted digit, and similarly from left to right for the > denominator. I'm not sure what should happen in right to left > contexts. I've a feeling the numerator should come before the > denominator, but the bidi algorithm doesn't swap them - it keeps the > first number on the left. Note that subscript and superscript digits > are only available for those of us who use the Western Arabic digits. > > However, I believe there is a real problem for the 'nut' style, where > the numerator and denominator are separated by a horizontal line - in > Western Asia westwards. I'm having trouble finding examples of > fractions using Indic scripts - apparently they originally stacked the > numerator above the denominator, but I don't know what happens nowadays. > > <snip>
