Re: name change

From: Jeremie Hornus <jeremie_at_hornus.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:44:04 +0100

On 23 Nov 2011, at 02:25, Doug Ewell wrote:

> Asmus Freytag replied to Jeremie Hornus:
>
>>> Wouldn't be "Unicode Character Glyph Description" more accurate than
>>> "Unicode Character Name" ?
>>> And just "Unicode Character Description" for those pointing to no
>>> glyph.
>>
>> These are "names" in the sense of an ID. That they are created by
>> deriving them from a description of the characters appearance in many
>> cases does not alter that fact.
>
> And there are many cases where "Glyph Description" would be very misleading. Neither "LATIN SMALL LETTER A" nor "LATIN SMALL LETTER G" specifies one common glyph variant or the other for those letters, and "MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR" is in no way a description of a glyph.
>

OK, I understand your point here.

My point was just that "name" can be misleading as well, specially where it refers to non-Latin characters because the "name" itself is made with Latin letters.

J.
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
>
>
Received on Wed Nov 23 2011 - 04:49:05 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Nov 23 2011 - 04:49:06 CST