Cistercian Numbers

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.

Here's a small summary about the numbers with many examples: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf

	▲	culi 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wish the 6 was a triangle in the other direction instead
	▲	bobbiechen 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Being first matters :') I 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.
	▲	autoexec 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It 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.
	▲	debo_ 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It 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.

▲

klondike_klive 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow, it's a while since I've seen one of those lists of hundreds of vampires that you have to deselect!

▲

dcanelhas 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Shouldn't 523 in that list of "other numbers" actually be 522?

	▲	poulpy123 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're right