On 8/31/2011 11:25 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/9/1 Karl Williamson<[email protected]>:
But now that I'm an UTC member, I hope I will hear these cases earlier...
Congratulations!
Does it justify so many new aliases at the same time ?
No. I'm firmly with you, I support the requirement for 1 (ONE) alias for
control codes because they don't have names, but are used in
environments where the need a string identifier other than a code point.
(Just like regular characters, but even more so).
I also support the requirement for 1 (ONE) short identifier, for all
those control AND format characters for which widespread usage of such
an abbreviation is customary. (VS-257 does not qualify).
Further, I support, on a case-by-case basis the addition of duplicate
aliases "for reasons of compatibility". I would expect these
compatibility requirements to be documented for each character in sort
of proposal document, not just a list of entries in a draft property file.
Finally, I don't support using the name of any standard, iso or
otherwise, as a label in the new status field. It sets the wrong precedent.
I've not checked the history of all past versions of UAX, UTR, and UTN
(or even in the text of chapters of the main UTS)... Are there other
cases in those past versions, that this PRI should investigate and
track back ?
My preference would be to start this new scheme of with a minimum of
absolutely 100% required aliases. Anything even remotely doubtful should
be removed for further study.
A./
