On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 2:11 PM John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> In cases of outright errors in > >> character names such as misspellings, a character may be given a formal > >> name alias. > > > > Right. Do we use the original, possibly broken name (which is at least > promised to be stable) or the corrected one? There are a couple hundred > alias names, so this isn’t entirely theoretical. > > > > (Having to ask that question puts me in the camp of liking U+NNNN more, > but putting the most corrected name at the time of writing *as well* might > help readers. > > [1] might give us some easy ways to to make that happen, but > unfortunately the [2] referenced from [1] does not indicate how the name is > chosen. > > This is a defect.) > > I was hoping we would expect the authors and editors to use a little > common sense. In the usual case that the name is not broken, they can use > it. If the name might be confusing or the number is important to the > point they're making, they can use the number or maybe both. Let's not > try to specify this down to the last pixel. > Strong seconding to John's point about allowing common sense and avoiding over-specification in an RSWG doc. Alexis > > R's, > John > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
