Re: Identifiers

From: David Starner (dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org)
Date: Mon Apr 16 2001 - 15:57:05 EDT


On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 08:37:26PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> DougEwell2@cs.com writes:
> > ...
> There should be a method to overcome the source sepearation rule which
> might have saved certain identical characters from unification.

Arguably. But that's irrelevant to this case. There has never been a
any real push to unify the distinct LATIN/GREEK/CYRILLIC scripts.

> > - U+0048 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER H
> > - U+0397 GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA
> > - U+041D CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER EN
> > - U+13BB CHEROKEE LETTER MI
>
> If this were Han glyphs, they would have been unified, wouldn't they? ;-)

No. In particular, none of the Cherokee glyphs show any ancestory with
any other script beyond the merely glyphic - sounds do not correspond, and
it's syllabic, not alphabetic.

> I don't think it's a general Unicode problem, but you have to know
> about this issues in order to design protocols which permit a large
> Unicode subset in identifiers and can nevertheless be used
> sucessfully.

I don't see why it's that much of a concern if the users pick reasonable
identifiers, and I don't think anyone can save users who are determinned
to pick unreasonable identifiers. Robert Dewar once pointed out a COBOL
obfusocater that changed all identifiers to strings of O's and 0's.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:16 EDT