Re: Lack Of Definition Of A Valid Ratio (part of detailed review of common microsyntaxes)

On Jul 10, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:

> The ratio subsection of common microsyntaxes does not do what the  
> rest of the numbers do: define what a valid number is. Due to the  
> algorithm returning at all sorts of places, it is rather complex to  
> work out, but I think:
> [[
> A string is a valid ratio if it consists of either one of more  
> characters in the range U+0030 DIGIT ZERO (0) to U+0039 DIGIT NINE  
> (9) followed by a denominator punctuation character (see table  
> below), or two valid unsigned integers separated by one or more  
> characters in Unicode character class Zs.
> ]]

The Unicode character class should probably be Unicode general  
category. I'm not familiar with the phrase "character class" in that  
context. Also for internationalization reasons, we should probably  
include all digits in Unicode: everything in the Nd (Number, decimal  
digit) category. This includes the characters listed already, but it  
also includes the various Indic-Arabic character variants in many  
other scripts. Those variants have the same relevant properties  
(e.g., numeric value) as the ASCII decimal digits.

Take care,

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 12:59:26 UTC