Re: "(in 6429)" in allkeys.txt

Ken Whistler answered my questions:

>> In the DUCET file allkeys.txt,
>> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt ,
>> there is "(in 6429)" as a comment for some characters.
>> I first didn't understand why, but then I realized those are control
>> characters that are part of ISO/EIC 6429.
>>
>> Why is that pointed out explicitly in that context?

Thanks for your answers! I feel enlightened.

>> The reason I'm asking is that I was looking at the proposed new version
>> of this file, and was thinking about suggesting a short note in the
>> comments in the beginning of the file.
>
> My personal preference, rather than larding up the header
> of a machine-generated file with more commentary, would be
> a suggestion for further clarification in the text of UTS #10, if
> necessary. After all, the allkeys.txt header already points to
> UTS #10 for more information -- which anyone needs to understand
> and use the data file, anyway.

I agree that a clarification in the text would be better than
a comment in allkeys.txt. But I also think just changing "(in 6429)"
to "(in ISO 6429)" would be enough.

(Strange as it might seem for list regulars not everyone immediately
makes the right association from this four-digit number. :-)

I think that would be a improvement, but I admit it's a rather small
one, and it can be hard to bother to fix small things unless it's
something you do when your fixing something nearby anyway.

This is somewhat besides the point, but since you say the file is
machine-generated I wonder about something I found in the draft version
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCA/7.0.0/allkeys-7.0.0d5.txt
where a comment says

# Tertiary weight range: 0002..001F (30)

even though the highest used tertiary weight actually is 001E.
Isn't this comment automatically made?
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Tue Mar 11 2014 - 17:02:35 CDT