Mende Kikakui Number 10

[Philippe Verdy]

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 <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr>:

> 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) <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>:
>
>> 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./
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20160611/105a3a77/attachment.html>