On 5/4/2015 10:32 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2015-05-04 18:42 GMT+02:00 Richard Wordingham
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
> No way to pack all the information into the name, and even character
> properties aren't covering all of them.
Unfortunately, when choosing a character from a character picker, the
most help one is likely to get is the character name. The name is
actually quite useful when the glyph is not as one expects or the
distinguishing features are not readily visible.
Character pickers are applications and not in scope of the standard
itself. It's up to the developers of these applications to provide the
necessary...
... additions that make their product usable, including any...
..localisations according to the expectations of their users for a
particular language, script, and/or country/region or even dialectal
variant.
You cannot have a single normative character name (in fact not really
a name, but a technical identifier) that will match all users
expectations in all cultures.
Right.
So the Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 have only chosen to use and publich a
single stable identifier throughout the standardization process; even
if it is bad, it will be kept. These names are not designed to be even
suitable for all English users (and just consider how CJK sinograms
are named, they are not suitable for anyone...).
There are open projects (outside Unicode and even outside CLDR itself)
to provide common character names in various locales.
I'm sure there are - there may even be work on a character picker, but
do you have any links?
A./
