From: Otto Stolz (Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de)
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 06:11:36 CST
Hello Arcane Jill,
you have written:
> I [...] freely confess to /not/ knowing TUS by heart,
Nor do I. I have simply looked up the term "character names" in
TUS's index, and the first two entries pointed me to the sections
pertinent to the current discussion. So much for the "obvious places"
where another contributor to this thread ostensibly had looked to
> I really don't understand why this thread is getting warm.
Its just because some of the contributors to this thread apparently
have not bothered to do this sort of basic (and simple!) research
before conceiving (and conveying) their ideas.
Peter had written:
> I don't know why there is a need for a
> second "unique and immutable identifier" in addition to the U+xxxx code
> point identifier.
I think that this question is answered in Section C.6 of TUS,
and have said so (admittedly in an ironic mood, sorry if I have
hurt anybody's feelings).
Now you are saying:
> but C.6 seems to me to explain why we /don't/ need character names any more. It says that ISO
> 10646 did need them (because it was the major source of character
> properties), but that Unicode uses property tables instead, and so
> doesn't. It seems to me that C.6 explains how we ended up with character
> names, but doesn't really give any compelling reason for keeping them.
Partial quote from TUS, Section C6:
> Unicode character names follow the ISO/IEC character naming guidelines (summarized in
> informative Annex L of ISO/IEC 10646).
> In the ISO/IEC framework, the unique character name is viewed as the major resource for
> both character semantics and cross-mapping among standards.
In my own words: For ISO standards, the Character Names fulfill the rôle Unicode numbers
play in the Unicode framework.
Conclusion: These names must be as stable as the numbers; ISO will never, ever consent
to have them altered, or deprecated. UTC is committed to keep Unicode in sync with
ISO 10646, thence the statement in TUS 16.1 I had quoted earlier today:
> Character names are unique and stable.
TUS C.6 goes on to explain where, in the Unicode framework, some descriptive information
is covered -- information, that some might seek in character names.
I had written:
> How could that be made clearer than in TUS, section 16.1?
Now you are suggesting:
> It could say something
> like: "Application developers are STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from displaying
> these names in a user-interface". That would help.
As said before: if you feel like suggesting a better wording
then submit it via <http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 22 2005 - 06:12:47 CST