From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 06:14:35 CST
Quoting Andrew West <andrewcwest@gmail.com>:
> We do not, and hope never will, encode characters just because someone
> says that they use it for writing their name. And even if someone can
> prove that they do use a special (non-unifiable) character for writing
> their name it should only be encoded if it is used in a wider context
> than someone's personal correspondence, for example in a book or a
> newspaper, or at the very least in a national ID system.
>
Whilst we all know that unicode doesn't encode names, CJKV is an
exception to this, or at least was in the past. About 10% of the 70
000 or so CJKV are personnel names where even the pronunciation is
unsure ( in the past both Taiwan and Hong Kong operated a system
wereby upon registaring names of new borns, immigrants etc, the name
(character not pronunciation) was stored dgitally, any characters not
in the system were simply added. In Taiwan by law such records must be
maintain for nine generations. The names need to be exact, consder the
headline "Murderer goes free because character printed wrong".
Regards
John
> But as John Jenkins says, this "isn't so much a rejection as a
> rejection-pending kind of thing". If Ben becomes famous enough that
> newspapers start refering to him as "<U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D>.?" then
> the character will be a suitable candidate for encoding. In meantime
> it is just a cute (albeit quite clever) personal-usage neologism. If
> we were to encode it now on Ben's word that he needs it, and he dies
> before achieving the fame that he undoubtedly deserves, Unicode will
> be lumbered ever after with a character that nobody needs.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 06:17:07 CST