On 2011.09.01 13:38, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>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).
I think this is a sensible approach. NameAliasesProv-6.1.0d3.txt provides SIX different aliases for U+000A ("LINE FEED," "NEW LINE," "END OF LINE," "LF," "NL," and "EOL"), and I can't think of any good reason to have so many different names attached to one character.
I think this was a knee-jerk reaction to the addition of U+1F514 BELL, and it feels like someone's trying to push it through with minimal scrutiny. I think the ISO 6429 names are good enough (plus they're already in UnicodeData.txt as the Unicode 1.0 names for those characters) and the extra 'control' aliases are superfluous (except for U+0007, U+0084, and U+FEFF).
At the very least, the 'control' aliases for U+008E, U+008F, U+0091, and U+0092 should be removed immediately. They violate Unicode's naming conventions and are hardly any different from the 'iso6429' aliases.
I'm also not fond of adding all these abbreviations as aliases, but it's not anything I'll lose sleep over.
—Ben Scarborough
Received on Fri Sep 02 2011 - 14:44:51 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Sep 02 2011 - 14:44:51 CDT