On 6/3/2014 10:17 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
On the practical side, it might be in order to warn against usage that
relies on some particular interpretation like that. What I mean is
that it is OK to use WARNING SIGN as warning about risk of personal
injury, but questionable to expect that people will generally take it
that way (and not more loosely as warning of some kind).
Yucca
It might be useful to note in the description of symbols that their
names are commonly not limited to the semantics (instead, names are
frequently based on appearance). The clarification could include
statements to the effect that:
In the case the name is based on semantics, the name chosen may reflect
only one of many uses of the symbol, and, further, the symbol may not
always be considered the "best" representative of that semantic by all
users.
Exceptions occur for example for mathematical symbols, many of which
have conventional names outside Unicode, some of which (like integral
sign) do directly name the standard use of that symbol.
I'm not sure, but I imagine if you read carefully that this is covered
already (either in the chapters or in the FAQ). Should comparable
language really be absent, that would be good to know.
A./
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
