Re: Mende Kikakui Number 10

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

A.

On Sunday, 12 June 2016, Marcel Schneider <charupdate_at_orange.fr> 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
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.
>>
>
>
> 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.»
>
> http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m03/0109.html
>
> Being bound with stability guarantees, Unicode could eventually add a
_new_
>
> *1E8D7 MENDE KIKAKUI NUMBER TEN
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marcel
>
>

-- 
Andrew Cunningham
lang.support_at_gmail.com