My minuscule pet peeve is that having only one source where the number 5 is depicted with a triangle (all others show it as a separated segment, like the number 6 but shorter), that's how every article or library draws it. It's all because the guy who wrote a book about them saw that source first so he based his figures on it.
replyHere's a small summary about the numbers with many examples: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf
In a Numberphile video [0], Alex Bellos also uses a triangle for 5.
replyBeing first matters :')
replyI wrote a font for these, which does use the triangle-5 and the vertical layout: https://bobbiec.github.io/cistercian-font.html (recent discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46939312)
And my associated writeup: https://digitalseams.com/blog/making-a-font-with-9999-ligatu... .
As mentioned in the blog, I think the horizontal layout makes more sense too (in terms of writing order). But just like the triangle-5, the vertical layout is more commonly seen, so that's what I stuck with.
I wish the 6 was a triangle in the other direction instead
replyIt might not be accurate but it does seem like it'd be easy to mistake a 5 and 6 without the triangle. Especially when the characters are being hurriedly written by hand. If I were going to use this system, I'd be sticking with the triangle.
replyIt would never have occurred to me that anyone would want to get these into a Unicode standard. This document you linked is excellent, thank you.
replyWow, it's a while since I've seen one of those lists of hundreds of vampires that you have to deselect!
replyShouldn't 523 in that list of "other numbers" actually be 522?
replyYou're right
reply