On Oct 14, 2025, at 14:09, 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.
Fully agree. The current text from the draft says: The preferred method for describing such characters is using the "U+NNNN" syntax from [BCP137]. [BCP137] describes the pros and cons . . . Further, some RFC authors might choose to use something other than the "U+NNNN" syntax to describing characters, such as if the RFC already covers a different syntax that the reader will understand from the rest of the RFC. . . . However, some examples might require text with color due to the nature of the examples. If so, those examples need to also include the "U+NNNN" syntax. Nothing in the third text block contradicts the first two text blocks, nor does it prohibit the authors or the RPC from also adding character names. Does anyone have specific text changes they see needed for this topic? --Paul Hoffman -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
