From: Ahmad Gharbeia (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 20 2005 - 14:31:25 CST
I certainly didn't expect the ordering to be changed, and I understand
that ordering is not dependant on code-points. Specifically, in the
case of Arabic, some programs permit the sorting and numbering
according to a user-selected preference of letter ordering. In
mathematics and legal documents, the Abgadi order is used exclusively.
On the other hand I didn't know the names are also permanently fixed,
and in fact this dose not make much sense to me, specially in the
light of what Asmus mentioned regarding the names in the draft:
>It is ironic that early drafts of the Unicode Standard indeed used
the names that you prefer.
Even names of species are changed when necessary.
I still believe that having a transliteration for the names that is as
close as possible to the universally identifiable names, would have
made them more useful to use, even if only in the context of the
encoding standard, and not implying any cultural or political
consequences. After all, fool-proof technical referencing will still
require using code-point numbers. It just these names don't look
Besides, standards' manuals are increasingly becoming the only source
of education that some people do get :-)
Regarding the annotation, is it required to make a proposal to this
effect, or is this group monitored for feedback?
I thank you all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 20 2005 - 14:33:02 CST