Re: Lowercase numerals

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 23:00:11 EST

  • Next message: Patrick Andries: "Re: Lowercase numerals"

    Doug Ewell answered:

    > Thomas Lotze <thomas dot lotze at uni dash jena dot de> wrote:
    > > Why is it that while there are both uppercase and lowercase roman
    > > numerals in the Unicode character set (in the Number Forms range), no
    > > lowercase arabic numerals (old-style or text figures) are encoded? If
    > > they are regarded as presentation forms of the uppercase numerals (in
    > > the Basic Latin range), why is this not the case for their roman
    > > counterparts?
    > Because oldstyle numerals aren't really "lowercase" in the same sense as
    > small letters (though some typographers think of them that way; see
    > [1]). They're just glyph variants of the uniform-height "lining"
    > numerals, so yeah, it's a character-glyph thing.

    And to complete the answer for Thomas, the Roman numerals are
    based on Latin letters, which *do* have upper/lowercase distinctions,
    unlike digits. The compatibility Roman numerals in the Unicode
    Standard (U+2160..U+217F) are derived from East Asian standards
    which separately encoded upper- and lowercase forms, so would have
    been required to be separately encoded just for compatibility


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 23:46:28 EST