From mark@kli.org Fri Sep 28 06:10:36 2001
Return-Path: <mark@kli.org>
X-Sender: mark@kli.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 28 Sep 2001 13:09:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 79521 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2001 13:09:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 28 Sep 2001 13:09:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n19.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.2)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Sep 2001 13:10:34 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org
Received: from [10.1.10.94] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2001 13:10:33 -0000
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:10:31 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: periodic hexadecimal reminder
Message-ID: <9p1ss7+107cp@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <9p10jq+gcgp@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 990
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2
From: mark@kli.org

--- In lojban@y..., thinkit8@l... wrote:
> anyway, what's wrong 
> with A-F? caps are only used in cmene, and can't be used for an 
> entire word--so their use in lojban should be unambiguous.

Not so fast. There's already a proposal that's seen some use to 
permit the convention of using all-caps to represent lerfu (so 
instead of typing {.abuby.} you type {AB}). THAT can be permitted 
for the reason you state: that all-caps are not used elsewhere in 
the language (with the possible exception of poetry where stressed 
cmavo may have to be specified). If we allow A-F as digits, that 
would yield ambiguity caused by these two proposals. We might 
grouse that no such silliness should be permitted, but I think that 
*one* of the two proposals (not both) is fairly harmless... and it's 
the lerfu one.

BTW, tinkit, don't keep saying "hex is the default" when it isn't, 
OK? It's reasonable "I want hex to be the default," but shouting 
untruths makes them no more true.

~mark