If you look at the documents archived for 2012
(http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13001-register-2012.htm), you will
find, beyond the Mende proposal
(http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12023-n4167-mende.pdf), several
documents by Deborah Anderson focused on the problem of the encoding
model Mende Numbers.
(http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12049-mende-model.pdf ,
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12265-mende-numbers.pdf ). They all
discuss the problem posed by the representation of 10 in a model using
combining character, and the ambiguity of its representation.
The there is a document
(http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12335-n4375-mende-adhoc.pdf) on the ad
hoc meeting deciding the (different) encoding model which has been kept
for Unicode. But neither this document, nor the unicode standard
expliceitely say how to represent 10 or say that 10 has an inherent dot.
The document explicitly says that “precomposed glyphs in smart fonts
will give the best representation”, so my reading is almost the same as
yours :
Le 10/06/2016 08:15, Andrew Cunningham a écrit :
Represent 10 as U+1E8C7 U+1E8D1 and map it within the font to the PU
glyph.
except that the vertical line of PU goes beyond its “bowl” which is not
the case for the glyph for 10, which should look like the glyph for
TENS, with a dot above.
And hope that font developers don't create a glyph based on shape of
U+1E8C7 and U+1E8D1, but PU instead.
Once someone present in the ad-hoc Mende meeting (some read this list)
confirms (or corrects) this interpretation, I guess it will be time to
add some clarification in the standard.
Frédéric
