Re: Hexadecimal digits

From: CE Whitehead (
Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 19:41:37 CDT

  • Next message: William_J_G Overington: "Re: Emoji (was: Re: Preparing a proposal for encoding a portable interpretable object code into Unicode)"

    Hi I tend to agree with the arguments of Doug and Hans.
    From: Doug Ewell (
    Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 14:35:15 CDT

    > "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:

    >> Unicode has Roman numerals and bar counting (base 0); why should base 16 be
    >> denied unique characters?

    > The Roman numeral characters starting at U+2160 are compatibility
    > characters. They exist in Unicode only because they existed in one or
    > more of the other character sets used as a source for Unicode, so data
    > can be converted between Unicode and the other set without loss.

    > People aren't encouraged to use the special Roman numeral characters,
    > but rather to write Roman numerals using Basic Latin letters. And yes,
    > that means the string "mix" out of context could be an ordinary English
    > word or the Roman representation of decimal 1,009. Plain text is full
    > of things that get resolved by rudimentary context. Hexadecimal numbers
    > are like that.
    Yes, thanks, my feelings.
    > A set of hex-digit glyphs like Nystrom's, or like Bruce Martin's (see
    > Wikipedia "Hexadecimal"), or any other characters for that matter, would
    > have to see much more popularity than this to be considered for formal
    > encoding. If you are interested in a writing system that includes
    > built-in support for hex digits, see
    > . But do not expect
    > any part of this writing system, which has been used by maybe four or
    > five people, to be a candidate for Unicode either.
    > --
    > Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA |
    From: Hans Aberg (
    Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 16:45:57 CDT

    > On 4 Jun 2010, at 20:39, Luke-Jr wrote:

    >> Unicode has Roman numerals and bar counting (base 0); why should
    >> base 16 be
    >> denied unique characters?

    > Anyway, if you can show these John Nystrom Tonal System glyphs have
    > been in textual use, perhaps they should be encoded.
    Thanks. That's if they have been in textual use -- and sorry; I think it's necessary to use the characters you have developed in a small circle first somehow, then to propose their encoding in the unicode character sets.

    Best wishes in any case,

    C. E. Whitehead

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2010 - 19:44:38 CDT