Re: String name and Character Name

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 04:05:37 CST

  • Next message: Erkki Kolehmainen: "Re: Germa Umlaut (was: String name and Character Name)"

    On 26/04/2005 09:41, Otto Stolz wrote:

    > ...
    > I understand Asmus's claims, and TUS 16.1, thusly:
    > - The character names proper are meant as unique and immutable
    > identifiers.
    > - The character names plus the annotations (particularly the aliases) are
    > suitable for a user interface.
    Well, Asmus said the first, and TUS 16.1 says the second, so this is a
    reasonable logical deduction from the situation. Unfortunately Asmus
    also said, in effect, that character names are ONLY meant as unique and
    immutable identifiers, and suggested that they are unsuitable for use in
    a user interface. So your attempted reconciliation does not in fact
    work. Note also that Ken wrote, taking great care with his wording, that
    TUS "does not recommend use of Unicode character names in user
    interfaces". Thus neither Asmus nor Ken agrees with your summary.

    So I conclude that there is a need for clarification of the situation
    within the text of the standard.

    > ... Whoever is not able, or not willing, to draw a distinction between
    > (a) the
    > character names proper and (b) character names plus annotations,
    > please abstain
    > from prolongating this thread by rehashing their arguments, over and
    > over.
    Well, I have made this distinction clearly. If you look through this
    thread, and back before Asmus took it off track by making a statement of
    which Ken has now repudiated what seemed to be the plain meaning, you
    will find that I clearly stated and argued that annotations are an
    inadequate means of indicating errors in character names. This reminds
    me of the old practice of adding an errata slip into a printed book.
    This may get the publisher off the hook (i.e. he/she avoids legal
    responsibility for the error), but it is hardly an adequate way of
    correcting a text, and most readers will read the incorrect text without
    noting the erratum.

    But neither Asmus nor Ken made your distinction. I hereby offer them the
    chance to do so. Ken and/or Asmus, do you, or the UTC, or TUS, recommend
    use of "character names plus annotations" (as distinct from Unicode
    character names proper) in user interfaces?

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 04:07:39 CST