From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 22:21:43 CST
Look at it this way: The fact that everybody is saying the same
thing -- that the name isn't going to be changed because of iron-clad
stability policies -- should prove that it has nothing to do with
disrespect or insult to the Tamil people, language, or script. It would
be the same for anyone else.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
John Hudson <tiro at tiro dot com> wrote:
> But whether the name is meaningful or not, it is not going to change
> because it cannot be changed because of stability agreements between
> Unicode, ISO and other organisations. If it could be changed, I don't
> think you would find any opposition to changing it -- no one *wants*
> the standard to include incorrect and meaningless things --, but it is
> a practical impossibility. There are other things in the Unicode
> Standard that some of use would dearly love to see changed -- things
> that are, in practical terms, more important than character names
> because they affect character ordering and other implementation issues
> --, but these are covered by the same stability agreements as the
> names, and we have to accept that they are not going to be changed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 11 2005 - 22:23:10 CST