Re: alternative names for letterlike symbols(was..Re: Release of Unicode 4.0)

From: Jungshik Shin (
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 00:00:37 EDT

  • Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: alpha, print, graph, blank, etc."

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Mark Davis wrote:
    > From: "Jungshik Shin" <>
    > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    > > > Jungshik asked:

    > > > > can they be subjected to change? Sometimes it's not machine readable
    > > > > data but the text of the book that needs some feedback.
    > > > From the point of view of feedback and review they are final.
    > >
    > > OK. I see, but I wish they were not because we haven't had a chance
    > > to directly review them (other than those in UTRs for which we had
    > > ample time to review and give feedbak)

    > You *did* get a chance. All of the sections that you reference are in the
    > nameslist, which was available in the beta of the Unicode Character Database
    > for quite a while.

       I was tempted to add 'machine readable data' after 'other
    than.....) here again. I should have done that although that wouldn't
    have rendered any less of a prime 'sin' my mistake of not realizing
    that alternative names are in NamesList file that had been available
    for feedback. I don't know how I forgot that there is NamesList.
    Anyway, I found that Devanagari Vowel Sign AA is now correctly
    placed in 'Dependent vowel signs' subblock.

      Except for one :-) I believe the following issue genuinely falls to the
    category of copy-editing(or whatever is left of TUS 4.0 book publishing
    procedure). It's about typesetting (not the content.) Why don't you
    take a look at to see what
    I meant?

    > > In addition, in the annotation (canonical decomposition) for
    > > U+0BCA, U+0BCB, and U+0BCC glyphs for U+0BC6, U+0BC7 and U+0BC6 (the
    > > left part of two part vowel signs) in the chart for Tamil kinda bump
    > > upon(overlap) the last digits to the left (6, 7, and 6) making them hard
    > > to recognize.

      Anyway, I'll make sure that I'll report other problems during 4.1 (or
    whatever next version) beta period.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 00:40:02 EDT