From: Jim Allan (jallan@smrtytrek.com)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 12:24:07 EST
Doug Ewell wrote:
> But apparently, for whatever reason, it IS very important to some
> programmers and programs, and they have made it very clear for years and
> years now that the names *must not change* in the interest of stability.
On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent the Unicode consortium or
any other body or any single person from creating a new *additional*
corrected set of names if the Unicode consortium or any other body or
any single person wishes to do so.
That would just be an alternative list of character names.
There would be nothing to prevent any particular application or language
or individual person or standard using such an alternative list in
preference to the older standard Unicode list of names, if indeed anyone
is really using these names for much of anything.
The only real purpose I can see the names serve is that writing
something like MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCHWA is more easily understood by
a reader who doesn't have TUS handy than is U+1D4A. At least the reader
knows that some kind of schwa is being referenced (if the reader knows
what a schwa is.) And if they come across the same name in another
article about phonetic characters in Unicode they can be reasonably sure
the same character is being discussed.
Also if there is either a typo in the name or in the Unicode identifying
code then one of these can serve as a check on the other.
But I rather not be surprised if that at some time in the future a
second set of names with obvious errors corrected were to be created.
Jim Allan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 13:20:43 EST