Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 11:16:27 CST

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

>> The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b)
>> reasonably mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a bonus. They
>> expressly do *not* represent any form of transliteration or
>> transcription scheme.
> That doesn't mean that some of our conventions aren't based on rules
> related to various transliteration or transcription schemes.

Well, true, they aren't arbitrary. Obviously there is an attempt to
make the names meaningful. But there is no *promise* that a given
character name accurately represents a suitable transliteration or
transcription of the character. Two examples of this, often cited by
Michael, are U+01A2 and U+01A3.

That means that if Peter Jacobi discovers a possible anomaly in the
character names for Tamil NNA and NNNA -- a question on which I am
taking NO STAND WHATSOEVER, by the way -- there is no need to file an
erratum on the names. There might be an informative annotation, but
that's it. For all the effort UTC and WG2 do make to give correct and
meaningful names to characters, there is no guarantee that the
occasional OI won't show up, and this is officially not an error in the

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST