2011/8/27 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>:
> I agree with Ken that Phillipe's suggestion of conflating the annotations
> for mathematical use with formal Unicode name aliases is a non-starter.
Yes but why then adding ISO 6429 alias names ? What makes ISO 6429 a
better choice than another ISO standard, that you want to reject as a
"non-starter" option in the normative UCS namespace ?
And why dropping some naming rules for some the proposed alias names,
if this namespace also has normative rules ? If you want consistency,
those aliases could as well be informative only, and not part of the
UCS namespace, avoiding some of its restrictions, i.e. not defined in
the UCD itself but in a separate database.
And you did not reply to the question about the stability of the
related standard using these aliases, compared to the stability
requirement for the UCS namespace: if there's no such stability, the
normative reference in the UCD will remain only informative for the
other standard, creating possible future conflicts.
Received on Sat Aug 27 2011 - 00:14:27 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Aug 27 2011 - 00:14:34 CDT