Re: Why Nothing Ever Goes Away (was: Re: Acquiring DIS 10646)

From: Philippe Verdy <>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:57:23 +0200

Also the aliases for C1 controls were formally registered in 1983 only for
the two ranges U+0084..U+0097 and U+009B..U+009F for ISO 6429.

So the abbreviation (and names) aliases given to:
- U+0083 (NBH = NO BREAK HERE),
- U+0098 (SOS=START OF STRING) and
are also discutable (but they may have other sources than just ISO 6429,
probably from IBM for its proprietary EBCDIC-based systems). In that case
the same sources could have given names/abbreviations to U+0080, U+0081 and

The problem could be that their late mapping from EBCDIC to some
ISO8859-compatible encoding was still fuzzy before some date, or was also
fuzzy within EBCDIC-based encodings themselves across their versions or in
their implementations and applications on those systems.
Anyway those aliased names and abbreviations have been published by Unicode
and should remain stable now.

2015-10-06 0:37 GMT+02:00 Philippe Verdy <>:

> 2015-10-05 21:32 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler <>:
>> On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>> I too am puzzled as to what DIS 10646 and C1 control pictures have to do
>>> with each other.
>> What an *excellent* cue to start a riff on arcane Unicode history!
>> First, let me explain what I think Sean Leonard's concern here is.
>> 1. On 10/4/2015 5:30 AM, Sean wrote: "I proposed adding C1 Control
>> Pictures to
>> Unicode. ... The requirement is that all glyphs for U+0000 - U+00FF be
>> graphically distinct."
>> Ah, but Sean has noticed that of all the representative glyphs we have use
>> in the current code charts for C1 control codes, exactly *3* of them share
>> an odd glyph. U+0080, U+0081, and U+0099 use the same dotted box
>> with an "XXX" in it. That creates a conflict with the requirement that
>> Sean has stated for glyphs for *graphic symbols for* control codes,
>> presumably for addition the to 2400 Control Pictures block and some
>> extensions elsewhere, each with a visually distinct representation.
> Good remark, but that does not mean that we really need to encode new code
> points for C1 control pictures.
> What is really needed is to change their representative glyph in charts:
> their dotted box should better include "0080", "0081" and "0099" in them
> rather than "XXX", if those C1 positions don't have any *agreed*
> ASCII-letters aliases (though their common abbreviations are listed in the
> English Wikipedia article as "PAD", "HOP", and "SGCI" respectively)
> Note this old L2 discussion note for their unspecified aliases by Ken
> Whistler:
Received on Mon Oct 05 2015 - 17:58:40 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 05 2015 - 17:58:40 CDT