Re: PRI #202: Extensions to NameAliases.txt for Unicode 6.1.0

From: Philippe Verdy <>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 00:22:10 +0200

So now we completely agree. Thanks.

2011/9/1 Asmus Freytag <>:
> On 8/31/2011 11:25 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> 2011/9/1 Karl Williamson<>:
>> 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 - 17:26:19 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Sep 01 2011 - 17:26:21 CDT