On 8/26/2011 10:09 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/8/27 Asmus Freytag<asm...@ix.netcom.com>:
I agree with Ken that Phillipe's suggestion of conflating the annotations
for mathematical use with formal Unicode name aliases is a non-starter.
Yes but why then adding ISO 6429 alias names ? What makes ISO 6429 a
better choice than another ISO standard, that you want to reject as a
"non-starter" option in the normative UCS namespace ?
Because, had the control codes been treated like "normal" characters,
they would have named for their 6429 counterparts. For these characters,
not having any formal identifiers in the standard created the problem
that these aliases are now trying to fix.
And why dropping some naming rules for some the proposed alias names,
if this namespace also has normative rules ? If you want consistency,
those aliases could as well be informative only, and not part of the
UCS namespace, avoiding some of its restrictions, i.e. not defined in
the UCD itself but in a separate database.
I think, the naming rules issue is a bug. And needs to be dealt with in
revising the draft. I've already answered that, but you haven't seen the
answer come through on the list.
And you did not reply to the question about the stability of the
related standard using these aliases, compared to the stability
requirement for the UCS namespace: if there's no such stability, the
normative reference in the UCD will remain only informative for the
other standard, creating possible future conflicts.
This is no different than for character names derived from other
standards. If those standards subsequently change designators, too bad.
You misconstrue the issue slightly. Unicode would not make a normative
reference, it would copy, once, a particular name and use it as an alias.
A./
