On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:25:39 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > 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. >
Seeing the discussion exhausted, I join my hope to Philippe Verdyʼs, and reinforce by quoting Asmus Freytag on backcompat vs enhancement, before bringing another concern: «If you add a feature to match behavior somewhere else, it rarely pays to make that perform "better", because it just means it's now different and no longer matches. The exception is a feature for which you can establish unambiguously that there is a metric of correctness or a widely (universally?) shared expectation by users as to the ideal behavior. In that case, being compatible with a broken feature (or a random implementation of one) may in fact be counter productive.» http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m03/0109.html Being bound with stability guarantees, Unicode could eventually add a _new_ *1E8D7 MENDE KIKAKUI NUMBER TEN Best wishes, Marcel
