From: David Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 16:49:52 CST
On Apr 5, 2005 5:41 PM, John Hudson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> No, it is not. MSKLC's use of Unicode names is *informative* too. It is a mnemonic aid to
> confirming which Unicode character you are mapping to a particular key state. What would
> you prefer? That MS invent its own character names, confusing users and generating ambiguity?
The only users it will confuse are the ones that who are familiar with
Unicode, and it's easy to provide them with standard names or numbers.
Informative names don't have to be standardized and unchanging; there
should just be a unambigious reference back to the standard in some
way. The character names shouldn't be trying to be an unchanging
reference for computer programmers and a way for Joe Shmo to find the
character he wants.
It'd be nice if Unicode provided a list of mnemonic names for Joe, but
I don't see any reason for the Microsoft or anyone else not to
customize them for their purposes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 16:51:10 CST