Mende Kikakui Number 10

Andrew Cunningham at
Sat Jun 11 22:25:17 CDT 2016

Marcel, it isn't so much that the conversation was exhausted, rather that
the original question has been sufficienlty answered.


On Sunday, 12 June 2016, Marcel Schneider <charupdate at> 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
>> conceptual error that could have been avoided by NOT encoding "TENS" as
>> but as a regular number/digit TEN usable isolately, and forming a
>> ligature with a previous digit from TWO to NINE.
>> The encoding of 10 as (ONE+TENS) is superfluously needing an artificial
>> ONE. This is purely an Unicode construction, foreign to the logic of the
>> 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.»
> Being bound with stability guarantees, Unicode could eventually add a
> Best wishes,
> Marcel

Andrew Cunningham at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list