From: Richard Wordingham (
Date: Sun Oct 23 2005 - 04:55:08 CST

  • Next message: Otto Stolz: "Re: CLDR proposal: Holiday rules"

    Philippe Verdy wrote:

    > Anyway, I don't think that the stability of character names is really
    > important. The stability of these normative names are only necessary for
    > the standardization process itself, but not for applications (including
    > Unicode) of the ISO/IEC 10646 standard, that simply use the final
    > allocated codepoints for all other references.

    What if header files for an application are automatically generated from
    UnicodeData.txt? (I for one am on the verge of using such a header file.)
    Now, for most applications, swapping LAO LETTER FO SUNG and LAO LETTER FO
    TAM will not matter. But suppose I have a program that converts written Lao
    to IPA. (There is at least one web application that does this, but I
    haven't tried looking at its code. It'd be trivial compared to the programs
    that struggle to extract the pronunciation from written Thai. ) If such an
    application is using automatically generated identifiers, swapping them
    round will break it if it is already working properly, and fix it if the
    author had been too clever and trusted the Unicode names to give him the
    consonant classes.

    > I have definitely stopped thinking that these normative names are useful
    > in any reference or application as identifiers (and their use in Unicode
    > regexps is just an unnecessary pollution, that does not make regexps more
    > useful and more expressive, given that equivalent codepoints can be used
    > instead).

    Congratulations on memorising the Unicode codepoint assessments. I though I
    was doing well to recognise the virama codepoints by number.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 23 2005 - 04:57:27 CST