Re: Tamil Aytham and the role of Unicode names

From: gpw@uniserve.com
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 14:54:32 CST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"

    You are refusing to read the standard. Sections 3.3 and 16.1 clearly
    indicate that names are sometimes misleading. Section 3.1 references B.4
    which references the Unicode website on policies which explicitly says
    NAMES DO NOT GET CHANGED. That last point is true no matter how much
    you chivy the list to do otherwise.

    If people implementing the standard don't understand it well enough to
    grasp this point, then they are going to have a lot more problems than
    erroneously implementing a character's behaviour according to a misleading
    name rather than it's true function.

    An annotation in the code chart and descriptive text under the script
    description should be ample for setting people on the right path.

    Geoffrey

    Quoting Sinnathurai Srivas <sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk>:

    > I'm not discussing about errors and wheather it was made by ISCII or UC. I'm
    > only discussing about the refusal to correct the errors in the correct way.
    > I'm discussing how to deal with these matters for the future.
    >
    > I read the UC's rule about anotating. It clearly states to deal with it in
    > such a manner that error is corrected and continuity is supported.
    >
    > At present the solution is continuity is supported at with the absent of
    > correcting error.
    > There is no justification for refusing to correct properly.
    >
    > The definition is wrong. The correction still places errornous definition as
    > primary. All the argument of strings are not worth a cent. UC need to look
    > at this with deep breath.
    >
    > Current definition misleads developers. This is a fctor far worse in dimage
    > to Unicode than continuity. Ofcourse continuity is essential, but should be
    > kept in perspective.
    >
    > Consider a software or hardware manufacturer, who made some mistake and are
    > refusing to correct them. Can you imagine the reaction?
    >
    > If a problem can be solved it should be solved. Only situation I can think
    > where it would become problematic is if a code point is shared by many
    > languages and are all bickering about what to call it. Please resolve this
    > issue.
    >
    > Sinnathurai Srivas

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 14:55:29 CST