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

From: Mark Davis ☕ <>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:17:08 -0700

There are really a few purposes for this list.

   1. Cover the aliases for a given character that are in *very* widespread
   use in the industry.
   2. Cover the aliases for a given character that we have recommended that
   people use in UTS #18, for quite some time.
   3. *Most importantly, reserve the names in #1 and #2 so as to prevent new
   characters from having colliding names.*

There is no intention of covering all possible aliases from any standard or
usage, so the list has already been filtered down substantially.

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:43, Benjamin M Scarborough <> wrote:

> 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 - 15:19:53 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Sep 02 2011 - 15:19:56 CDT