4 ms·
> using capital i as roman numeral lookalike (instead of unicode) theirs At least that much is correct. Quoth the Unicode Standard: > For most purposes, it is
by bradrn 3y ago
> using capital i as roman numeral lookalike (instead of unicode) theirs
At least that much is correct. Quoth the Unicode Standard:
> For most purposes, it is preferable to compose the Roman numerals from sequences of the appropriate Latin letters.
[from https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch15.pdf https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch15.pdf]
Note that Unicode has a lot of characters like this — compatibility forms which are present to allow lossless conversion to/from other character sets, but shouldn’t be used in any new text.
- gundmc 3y agoHonestly I had no idea there were Unicode characters for Roman numerals separate from the letters they are composed of.
- whatamidoingyo 3y agoSame. You learn something new every day, eh?
- lucb1e 3y ago> separate from the letters they are composed of I didn't actually realise they're letters. To me it's distinct symbols just like 0 is a distinct ascii symbol from O. Now that you mention it, I realise that I knew that five is V and M is a thousand or something, but the symbol for one/1, is that actually defined as a capital i and not just a line of some form? Since surely the digit for one came before the latin script
- janc_ 3y agoLatin (and ancient Greek) didn't have dedicated symbols for numbers, but at sone point the Romans started using a shorthand system based on existing alphabetic symbols, which we now call "Roman numerals". It's quite possible the "I"s started out as just a line to mark one item before the shorthand was developed, but certainly over time it became identified to capital "I".