From: Andrew C. West (andrewcwest@alumni.princeton.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 02:27:42 CST
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:40:20 +0300, Erkki Kolehmainen wrote:
>
> I specifically oppose the proposal, too.
>
> It never occurred to me even as a remote possibility that no reaction to
> this proposal could be interpreted as support by anyone, including the
> originator.
>
Claiming the silence of the majority as evidence of support for one's position
seems to be an unfortunately common ploy from some members of this list.
Perhaps like others on this list I didn't specifically oppose Peter's proposal
as I did not want to hurt his feelings by calling it an infantile response to a
non-existent problem (I do not doubt that some characters are misnamed, but
misnamed or not all Unicode character names are adequate for their intended
purpose).
Andrew
> Sincerely,
>
> Erkki I. Kolehmainen
>
> Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> > Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I am well aware that names cannot be changed or replaced. But there is
> >>nothing in the Unicode stability policy which rules out deprecation of
> >>the entire list of character names. And I have only seen one previous
> >>response which has specifically opposed this proposal.
> >>
> >
> > I specifically oppose this proposal.
> >
> > There are over 16,000 character names in the Unicode Standard, even
> > after factoring out the mechanical ones like CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-4E00.
> > Roughly how many of these are so hideously wrong that it justifies
> > throwing out the entire list?
> >
> > If we are talking about FHTORA and BRAKCET and Tamil visarga/aytham and
> > Latin OI and a handful of others, that is less than 0.1% of the entries
> > in UnicodeData.txt. The overwhelming majority of character names are
> > just fine.
> >
> > -Doug Ewell
> > Fullerton, California
> > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 02:28:58 CST