default numbering system for Arabic locales
Richard Wordingham via CLDR-Users
cldr-users at unicode.org
Tue Apr 23 20:04:10 CDT 2019
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:55:15 -0700
Markus Scherer via CLDR-Users <cldr-users at unicode.org> wrote:
> The terminology is messy. I explicitly say "ASCII digits" vs.
> "native" (for a given script) or "Arabic-script".
> The U+06xx digits are native to the Arabic script, but you are right
> that for Arabic in Morocco or Algeria they are not customary (as I
> said, and as you can see in the data).
My claim is not only not customary now, but never were.
The decimal digits are younger than the Arabic and Latin scripts.
> The U+06Fx digits are used for Persian and Urdu, not for the Arabic
> *language*, but of course Persian & Urdu do use the Arabic *script*.
The difference between U+0662 and U+06F2 is that the former is bidi=AN
and the latter is bidi=EN. My question was whether that difference was
anything more than a coding convention. If there is a difference, then
perhaps the Maghribi forerunners of European digits need to be encoded
More information about the CLDR-Users