W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2003

Re: CSS3-Lists-20021107 Comments

From: Yung-Fong Tang <ftang@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:00:56 -0800
Message-ID: <3E7A4828.70104@netscape.com>
To: Daniel Yacob <locales@geez.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org, kode@hotbox.ru

As I said in other email. I have to take back my claim that I see no 
book about uppercase Armenian used in number system. But I still doubt 
there are books really use upper case armenian.

Also please ignore the commend I made about Syriac. That issue got 
answered on the mailling list several days ago.

Daniel Yacob wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>As a follow up to our comments on the CSS3-Lists-20020220
>document we have updated our thoughts with respect to the
>20021107 draft specification.  In part the comments have already
>been expressed across a number of emails following the publication
>of 20021107 draft.  The updated response collects these comments
>together as well as offers additional input.
>
>  http://www.ethiopic.org/w3c/css/WD-css3-lists-20021107-comments.html
>
>thank you,
>
>
>Daniel Yacob
>Musheg Arakelyan
>Alexander Savenkov
>
>  
>


attached mail follows:


here are some of my personal comments after I reviewed this draft  ( 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-lists-20021107/ ) against the paper I 
put together for the 16th International Unicode Conference, March 27-30, 
2000 in Amsterdan, Holland
at http://people.netscape.com/ftang/paper/unicode16/part2.html

1. armenian and lower-armenian

The characters you used there seems very different from what inside my 
paper. Where do you get those definitation?
It looks like you list the "lower-armenian" to express the number. From 
all the books and paper I collect, I didn't see the use of lower case 
armenian characters for number. Have this got reviewed by native Armenian?

Could you list the references for future research ?

Here is my source:

    * Writing System Of the World, Page 24
    * The World's Writing Systems, Section 28: The The Armenian
      Alphabets, page 358, by Avedis K. Sanjian
    * Re: [Fwd: Question about Number] :
          o news://news.mozilla.org/001b01be6a26%241f256b00%24386597c2%40freenet.am 
          o news://news.mozilla.org/004a01be6b14%2452057580%24386597c2%40freenet.am 

    * The World's Writing Systems, Edited by Peter T. Daniels and
      William Bright, 1996, published by Oxford University Press, ISBN
      0-19-507993-0
    * Writing System Of the World, Akira Nakanish, 1980, published by
      Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc., ISBN 0-8048-1654-9

Could you tell me more about the story of how you express 7000?

2. about japanese-formal and japanese-informal

Formal Japanese numbering System
This looks right

Informal Japanese numbering system
This does not looks right. I think your current value is wrong. First of 
all, the current document repeatly use the same characters in Group 
Marker and in the Digit Marker. That is definitaly wrong.
I think the definitation should be

Second Group Marker U+4E07
Third Group Marker U+5104
Fourth Group Marker U+5146
Second Digit Marker U+5341
Third Digit Marker U+767e
Fourth Group Marker U+5343

Digit 0 U+96f6
Digit 1 U+4e00
Digit 2 U+4e8c
Digit 3 U+4e09
Digit 4 U+56db
Digit 5 U+4e94
Digit 6 U+516d
Digit 7 U+4e03
Digit 8 U+516b
Digit 9 U+4e5d 

Notice that Second Group Marker/Third Group Marker and Fourth Group 
Marker should be the same characrers used in the formal Japanese

simp-chinese-formal
formal simplified Chinese numbering
(you should call it Simplified Chinese. Not "Simple Chinese" same in the 
simp-chinese-informal session)
Your table does not looks right. I think the following characters should 
be used instead

Second Group Marker U+4E07
Third Group Marker U+4ebf
Fourth Group Marker U+5146
Second Digit Marker U+62fe
Third Digit Marker U+4f70
Fourth Group Marker U+4edf

Digit 0 U+96f6
Digit 1 U+58f9
Digit 2 U+8d30
Digit 3 U+53c1
Digit 4 U+8086
Digit 5 U+4f0d
Digit 6 U+9646
Digit 7 U+67d2
Digit 8 U+634c
Digit 9 U+7396 

simp-chinese-informal
informal simplified Chinese numbering
(you should call it Simplified Chinese. Not "Simple Chinese" same in the 
simp-chinese-formal session)
Your table does not looks right. I think the following characters should 
be used instead

Second Group Marker U+4E07
Third Group Marker U+4ebf
Fourth Group Marker U+5146
Second Digit Marker U+5341
Third Digit Marker U+767e
Fourth Group Marker U+5343

Digit 0 U+96f6
Digit 1 U+4e00
Digit 2 U+4e8c
Digit 3 U+4e09
Digit 4 U+56db
Digit 5 U+4e94
Digit 6 U+516d
Digit 7 U+4e03
Digit 8 U+516b
Digit 9 U+4e5d  


About syriac

The use of U+032D and U+0331 is quite strange in this document. It looks 
those are served as a temp place holder. I am not sure it is a good idea 
to use these two particular Unicode characters here. Could you tell me 
any reference about this algorithm?

trad-chinese-formal

Formal Traditional Chinese numbering system

Your table does not looks right. I think the following characters should 
be used instead

Second Group Marker U+842c
Third Group Marker U+5104
Fourth Group Marker U+5146
Second Digit Marker U+62fe
Third Digit Marker U+4f70
Fourth Group Marker U+4edf

Digit 0 U+96f6
Digit 1 U+58f9
Digit 2 U+8cb3
Digit 3 U+53c3
Digit 4 U+8086
Digit 5 U+4f0d
Digit 6 U+9678
Digit 7 U+67d2
Digit 8 U+634c
Digit 9 U+7396  



trad-chinese-informal

Informal Traditional Chinese numbering system

Your table does not looks right. I think the following characters should 
be used instead

Second Group Marker U+842c
Third Group Marker U+5104
Fourth Group Marker U+5146
Second Digit Marker U+5341
Third Digit Marker U+767e
Fourth Group Marker U+5343

Digit 0 U+96f6
Digit 1 U+4e00
Digit 2 U+4e8c
Digit 3 U+4e09
Digit 4 U+56db
Digit 5 U+4e94
Digit 6 U+516d
Digit 7 U+4e03
Digit 8 U+516b
Digit 9 U+4e5d 

upper-armenian
I am not sure it make sense to have lower-armenian or upper-armenian. 
 From my knowledge only the upper case character have been use to 
express number. Which books/paper tell you that lower case characters 
have been used?
Again, coulud you explain the source of why you use two characters to 
express 7000
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 18:03:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:20 GMT