- From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:50:18 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org

I have three suggestions that concern the Roman numeral list-style-type. Suggestion #1 For some fonts that support the Unicode Roman Numeral glyphs, for example "Bitstream Cyberbit" there is a difference in the appearance of <10><10><11> U+2169 U+2169 U+216A and <10><10><10><1> U+2169 U+2169 U+2169 U+2160. The first looks wrong in this font due to the difference in the appearance of X bewteen U+2169 and U+216A. While in the case of "Bitstream Cyberbit" this is due to the character height of <10> and <11> being different which could and should be corrected, it will be an unavoidable consequence of using any monospace font that the values for 21,22,31,32 will appear have different appeances for the X's in at least the spacing. Therefore, I suggest that lower-roman should not use the glyphs U+217A and U+217B, and upper-roman should not use the glyphs U+216A and U+216B. This would require changing substeps 9 and 10 of step 1 to read as follows: 9. While the number is greater than 10, add X U+2169 and subtract 10. 10. If the number is greater than 0, then add the appropriate roman numeral from I U+2160 (1) to X U+2169 (10). For example, if the number is 8, add VIII U+2167. Suggestion #2: In my opinion, one reason why glyphs for XI and XII were included in the standard were so that a standard set of gylphs would exist for roman numerals on clock faces. Despite my first suggestion, I can see where some people would wish to use those glyphs. Therefore, assuming Suggestion #1 is adopted, Let me suggest two new non-repeating numbering systems: clock-lower-roman: covering the range 1 to 12 using the glyphs from U+2170 to U+217B. clock-upper-roman: covering the range 1 to 12 using the glyphs from U+2160 to U+216B. Suggestion #3: While I can understand the desire to make use of the glyphs for <5000> U+2181 and 10000 U+2182 in making roman numerals, the simple fact is that these symbols are seldom taught when roman numerals are taught. Also, in all other upper/lower pairs of list-style-types, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the glyphs used in the lower and upper representations. Therefore, I suggest that the system defined as upper-roman be renamed and that upper-roman be defined as if it were lower roman but with glyphs from the set U+2160 to U+216F. Two possible name for the system using U+2181 and U+2182 are fancy-roman and capitol- roman.

Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 02:55:58 UTC