> Or, indeed, why the "proper" name for a character must be in English, > and spellable in ASCII, instead of, say, Japanese.
Because it's an English character list; limiting the use of the list to those who know 15 languages wouldn't be of much help. And ASCII, because once you've restricted it to English, it's not much of a restriction, and there's few channels where ASCII gets restricted, but many where arbitrary UTF-8 isn't accepted. > In fact, I don't even see why a Unicode character /has/ to > have a "proper name" at all. Because a great pain of Unicode is the lack of a standard JIS X0218-Unicode mapping, and part of that reason is the fact that JIS X0218 is a glyph standard without proper names and definitions of what the characters are. > ASCII characters never had them. http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/006.pdf (ISO 646, USA Version X3.4 - 1968) certainly seems to have them. > And, hey - > the official names for CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A (for example) > tell me nothing more than the script and codepoint anyway. And they are the exceptions to the rules. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
