From: Andrew West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 10 2010 - 05:15:22 CST
On 10 March 2010 01:17, Kenneth Whistler <email@example.com> wrote:
> Karl Williamson asked:
>> It appears that there is a high bar to getting an alias made for a
>> character name. Why is that?
> Why do you think that is the case?
I think that there rightly is a high bar for getting a formal alias
defined. There are very many character names that are not ideal or
that some people would prefer changed to something else (tens of
thousands if we count the term "ideograph"), but we do not want to
create hundreds or thousands of unnecessary formal aliases. On the
other hand there is a low bar for getting informal aliases added to
the code charts.
> But yes, it is generally difficult to get things changed
> in the standard, because it is maintained by committees
> (plural), and changes to the standard have to be presented
> to and reach consensus in committees, before they are
In the past, the definition of formal character name aliases has only
been a UTC matter, and has not come to WG2 for discussion or approval,
but as the new edition of ISO/IEC 10646 has been harmonized with
Unicode to include formal character name aliases, I suppose that any
future proposals for creating formal aliases should go to both UTC and
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 10 2010 - 05:19:21 CST