From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 13:52:03 CDT
D. Starner <shalesller at writeme dot com> wrote:
>> The good thing is that character names are not prescriptive. What a
>> character ends up being called does not influence or restrict its
>> potential usage.
> Why do you think that's true? People use characters all the time based
> on their names. The fact that Unicode doesn't change them after
> encoding makes it all the more important to name them right in the
> first place.
I hope nobody's using U+01A2 and U+01A3 to mean OI, even if that is
their name, or letting the name prevent them from using them to mean
Yes, we should get character names right. But getting them wrong
doesn't mean the character cannot be used for its intended purpose.
>> AS was listed as a ligature in the earlier proposal, N1686.
> That would be incorrect if modern users consider it a letter.
Important questions like this, and the need to settle them, are probably
why Old Hungarian has been set aside for the past 6 years rather than
being encoded as is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 20 2004 - 13:56:48 CDT