From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 10:37:10 CDT
On 09/09/2004 15:07, John Cowan wrote:
>Peter Kirk scripsit:
>>>Names are sometimes inaccurate, viz. ZINOR and ZARQA and the infamous
>>>FHTORA. That doesn't change the meaning or utility of the character.
>>Agreed. It simply changes, indeed destroys completely, the utility of
>>the character name.
>Not at all. As I've told you before (and you agreed before), it's
>just as much a fallacy to suppose that Unicode character names carry
>no information as to suppose that they carry complete information.
>The truth is somewhere between: most names are helpful, a few names
>are partially misleading (but not totally so).
>As for FHTORA, it's annoying, but I don't see how it can be read as
>anything but FTHORA if you know anything about Greek at all, which is
>probably why it was overlooked until it was too late.
Yes, but when ZARQA is tsinorit (there is no such thing as "Zarqa or
Tsinor ... placed above") and ZINOR is zarqa (I'm looking at 0598 and
05AE), the character names are not just partially misleading but false
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 10:43:44 CDT