> Michael Brady said:
>> BTW, reviving a subject from long ago, I firmly believe all figures
>> should be the same width (i.e., no narrow "1"), and hence they should
>> all align, i.e., be lining figures.
> Pardon me Michael, but your dictatorial streak is showing.
> Has all this discussion of Kaos reminded you of a childhood antipathy
> Don Adams?
Hmmm. I said "I firmly believe" (just as you did). That's a zealous
statement, not a dictatorial edict. Maybe if I had said, "You must
agree that all figures ...," then you would have a point.
To summarize my position: numerals and digits function in a number
differently from how letters function in a word. Letters represent
phonemic units, and the word is built from these phonemes until the
'meaning' of the word is recognized. By contrast, digits are arrayed in
a predetermined format to express a numerical value: numerals don't
spell a word as letters do.
As a test, try to read this 19-part string of glyphs:
Probably you can do it with little difficulty. Now read this 19-part
You probably need the help of a few well-placed commas:
Then you probably need to parse it (right to left): hundreds,
thousands, millions, billions, trillions, quadrillion, ah! 1
quintillion, 783 quadrillion, etc. etc.
This little exercise exhibits the fact that numerals don't exactly
spell out a number, but form it in a different way. As such, they are
entirely equal place-holders in the number array. (Perhaps I should say
people don't read numerals and numbers as they do letters and words.
And thus, I believe, numerals should be equal in width. AFAICT, the
figure 1 is the only numeral that is set on a different width from the
other nine numerals. Why make a single exception? Keep 'em all alike, I
order by fiat! :-)