Asmus Freytag replied to Jeremie Hornus:
>> Wouldn't be "Unicode Character Glyph Description" more accurate than
>> "Unicode Character Name" ?
>> And just "Unicode Character Description" for those pointing to no
>> glyph.
>
> These are "names" in the sense of an ID. That they are created by
> deriving them from a description of the characters appearance in many
> cases does not alter that fact.
And there are many cases where "Glyph Description" would be very
misleading. Neither "LATIN SMALL LETTER A" nor "LATIN SMALL LETTER G"
specifies one common glyph variant or the other for those letters, and
"MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR" is in no way a description of a glyph.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell Received on Tue Nov 22 2011 - 19:29:03 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Nov 22 2011 - 19:29:04 CST