Re: annotations

From: Asmus Freytag (t) <>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:05:05 -0700

On 3/14/2016 11:22 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Ken Whistler wrote:
>> The trick is this: the status of annotational data in NamesList.txt
>> is different than that of normative data like the code points, names,
>> formal name aliases, decomposition mappings, and standardized
>> variation sequences.
> I get that. I am FAR more comfortable with that type of guideline:
> • the data isn't normative (at least not all of it)
> • the format isn't set in stone
> • don't ask for additions or changes

Additions and changes to annotations are considered all the time.

There's just no implication that these must satisfy some arbitrary
criteria of completeness and internal consistency. They are added when
the editorial committee feels that the benefit outweighs the cost (bloat
& clutter).

The nature of all of these is more akin to comments - except that they
are not presented using a comment syntax (and the xrefs look structured,
instead of "see also code point XXXX").

Totally a perception issue.

> • caveat emptor


> than with any sort of blanket statement about "don't parse this file."
> I hereby promise to use NamesList.txt responsibly and with all of the
> above conditions in mind. Hopefully others will too.
> --
> Doug Ewell | | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
Received on Mon Mar 14 2016 - 16:05:57 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 14 2016 - 16:05:57 CDT