Marcel, it isn't so much that the conversation was exhausted, rather that the original question has been sufficienlty answered.
A. On Sunday, 12 June 2016, Marcel Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Andrew Cunningham [email protected]
