On 8/31/2011 11:25 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2011/9/1 Karl Williamson<public_at_khwilliamson.com>:
> But now that I'm an UTC member, I hope I will hear these cases earlier...
Congratulations!
> Does it justify so many new aliases at the same time ?
No. I'm firmly with you, I support the requirement for 1 (ONE) alias for
control codes because they don't have names, but are used in
environments where the need a string identifier other than a code point.
(Just like regular characters, but even more so).
I also support the requirement for 1 (ONE) short identifier, for all
those control AND format characters for which widespread usage of such
an abbreviation is customary. (VS-257 does not qualify).
Further, I support, on a case-by-case basis the addition of duplicate
aliases "for reasons of compatibility". I would expect these
compatibility requirements to be documented for each character in sort
of proposal document, not just a list of entries in a draft property file.
Finally, I don't support using the name of any standard, iso or
otherwise, as a label in the new status field. It sets the wrong precedent.
> I've not checked the history of all past versions of UAX, UTR, and UTN
> (or even in the text of chapters of the main UTS)... Are there other
> cases in those past versions, that this PRI should investigate and
> track back ?
My preference would be to start this new scheme of with a minimum of
absolutely 100% required aliases. Anything even remotely doubtful should
be removed for further study.
A./
Received on Thu Sep 01 2011 - 15:41:42 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Sep 01 2011 - 15:41:43 CDT