On 18 March 2016 at 23:49, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > > Correction: the 2-digit pairs would require 19 characters. There would > be no need for a left half circle enclosed digit one, since the > enclosed numbers 10–19 are already encoded. This would only leave > enclosed 20 as a potential confusable. There would also be no need for > a left third digit zero, saving one code point if the thirds are not > unified with the halves, so there would be 29 thirds. > > And just to clarify, there would have to be separate half cirlced and > negative half circled digits. So that would be 96 characters > altogether, or 58 if left and right third-circles are unified with > their half-circle equivalents. Not counting ideographic numbers.
Thanks for your suggestion, I have added two new options to my draft proposal, one based on your suggestion (60 characters: 10 left, 10 middle and 10 right for normal and negative circles) and one more verdyesque (four enclosing circle format characters). To be honest, I don't think the UTC will go for either of these options, but I doubt they will be keen to accept any of the suggested options. > This may not work very well for ideographic numbers though. In the > examples, they appear to be written vertically within their circles > (AFAICT none of the moves in those diagrams are numbered 100 or above, > although some are hard to read). I have now added an example with circled ideographic numbers greater than 100. See Fig. 13 in http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Unicode/GoNotation.pdf In this example, numbers greater than 100 are written in two columns within the circle, with hundreds on the right. Andrew
