Note that this is most probably true for the encoding of 100 as ONE+HUNDREDS, when HUNDREDS should be a regular number usable in isolation without the leading ONE. Same thing about THOUSANDS and similar, all encoded as combining characters; the name itself should not have taken the plural.
I just hope they have combining class 0. Then the error is the assigned general category C* which should have been N*. Can we fix that so that isolated uses of TENS or HUNDREDS or others in the series will NOT require any artificial leading digit ONE ? 2016-06-11 12:22 GMT+02:00 Philippe Verdy <[email protected]>: > Exactly, Unicode should not create its own logic about scripts or numeral > systems. > > All looks like the encoding of 10 as a pair (ONE+combining TENS) was a > severe conceptual error that could have been avoided by NOT encoding "TENS" > as combining but as a regular number/digit TEN usable isolately, and > forming a contectual ligature with a previous digit from TWO to NINE. > > The encoding of 10 as (ONE+TENS) is superfluously needing an artificial > leading ONE. This is purely an Unicode construction, foreign to the logic > of the numeral system. > > > 2016-06-11 9:08 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag (c) <[email protected]>: > >> On 6/10/2016 5:34 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: >> >> There is the logic of how kikakui numbers are encoded in Unicode and >> there is the internal logic of the numeral system itself. They are not >> necessarily the same. >> >> This statement should be framed! >> >> A./ >> > >
