Re: String name and Character Name

From: Otto Stolz (Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de)
Date: Mon Apr 18 2005 - 02:30:39 CST

  • Next message: David J. Perry: "RE: Example of the importance of scholarly encoding"

    Hello Peter Kirk,

    on 2005-04-13, I had written:
    > It would, however, be more useful to the general public, if you would
    > communicate your knowledge through the official channels, so your
    > suggestions would end in the places where users of the Unicode standard
    > would expect (and hence read) them, viz. in the annotations for
    > individual characters (TUS, chapter 16), in the description of the
    > individual scripts (TUS, chapters 7 through 15), or in the Unicode
    > Character Database, as appropriate.

    Again, you have quoted only part of this, like so:
    > I had written:
    >
    >> It would, however, be more useful to the general public, if you would
    >> communicate your
    >> knowledge through the official channels, ...
    (Here you have clipped the crucial part of my contribution,
    which renders my next sentence, quoted below, just ridiculous.)
    > Quoting only part of the above, you have written:
    >
    >> But I thought Ken had just told us that error reports on character
    >> names made through these channels would be ignored.
    >
    > I was explicitely talking about the things that *can* be changed, viz.
    > the annotations for individual characters (TUS, chapter 16), the
    > description of the individual scripts (TUS, chapters 7 through 15),
    > and the Unicode Character Database. ...

    And again, you conclude from your partial quote:
    > No, the context was very explicitly Unicode Character Names and any
    > "actual error, or inaccuracy" found in such names, as was clear from the
    > subject line and from the paragraph just before the one I quoted.

    And you fail completely to see that the paragraph you twice have
    quoted maimedly is meant to divert the context in the proper
    direction (I'll quote again in the hope that you will read it
    this time):
    > so your suggestions would end in the places where users of the
    > Unicode standard would expect (and hence read) them, viz. in
    > the annotations for individual characters (TUS, chapter 16),
    > in the description of the individual scripts (TUS, chapters 7
    > through 15), or in the Unicode Character Database, as appropriate.

    > This thread is about Unicode Character Names. I am well aware of
    > annotations.

    Apparently, not all of the contributors were. So I felt like having
    to point them in the right direction.

    You have continued:
    > The problem is that most software offering to users a
    > choice of characters, e.g. from a character map, does not display
    > annotations fully.

    This may indeed be a problem, but I was not aware of this when
    I wrote the above, as the software I am using does not display
    those Unicode Character Names, but rather localised names (which
    are not always accurate, either, but I deem this a problem
    of Microsoft, and not a problem of Unicode).

    I think, other contributors in this thread have already suggested
    viable solutions to that problem, so I won't try to outdo them.

    My point was, and still is: Send your substantiated suggestions
    for better descriptions of the various characters (in both the
    annotations in chapter 16, the description of the individual
    scripts (chapters 7 through 15), and the Unicode Character
    Database) to <http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html>. TUS is the
    ultimate reference for all applications of Unicode, so all
    corrections must go there.

    Best wishes,
       Otto Stolz



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 18 2005 - 02:31:28 CST