Re: String name and Character Name

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 15:30:33 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: What is Unicode in Deseret (was: (no subject))"

    On 26/04/2005 19:42, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

    >>And I
    >>think that Asmus and Ken are on my side here,
    >You may think so. I am not.
    >>when they respectively
    >>wrote that "The intended purpose of the character names... does not
    >>explicitly include the task of supporting users in identifying
    >>characters", and that TUS "does not recommend use of Unicode character
    >>names in user interfaces";
    >That's two times in a row that you have willfully and misleadingly
    >misquoted me. I wrote:
    >"It does not recommend use of Unicode character names in user
    >interfaces. Nor does it *dis*-recommend them."
    >Please cease and desist from misquoting me in an attempt
    >to recruit my words to buttress your argument.
    I did not misquote you. The nature of a quote is always to be selective.
    The words I quoted from you were precisely words that you wrote. I
    accept that you did write the additional words, whatever they might mean
    - I understand "*dis*-recommend" as equivalent to "deprecate", although
    perhaps informally. But those additional words were not relevant to the
    point which I was making, which was that TUS makes no formal positive
    recommendation on this point. And so, according to the list guidelines
    which ask us to avoid quoting irrelevant material, I did not quote them.

    So, Ken, do you or do you not agree with Otto's statement "The character
    names plus the annotations (particularly the aliases) are suitable for a
    user interface"? Does the UTC agree, or does it not? You can of course
    choose to sit on the fence here, but the result will be an increase in
    the present confusion, and will seem to indicate that you do not care
    less whether users are confused and just want to wash your hands of the

    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 - 15:32:08 CST