On 23 Nov 2011, at 00:21, Asmus Freytag wrote: > On 11/22/2011 1:22 PM, Jeremie Hornus wrote: >> >> >> Wouldn't be "Unicode Character Glyph Description" more accurate than >> "Unicode Character Name" ? >> And just "Unicode Character Description" for those pointing to no glyph. > > These are "names" in the sense of an ID. That they are created by deriving > them from a description of the characters appearance in many cases does not > alter that fact. >
I was thinking the ID being the code point value itself, and the "name" a human readable description of it. J. > A./ >> >> >> J. >> >> On 22 Nov 2011, at 20:35, Asmus Freytag wrote: >> >>> On 11/22/2011 11:02 AM, a...@peoplestring.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> In one of the discussions in this community, it was stated that once >>>> assigned, the name of a character cannot be changed. But I have noticed >>>> some characters have their name changed eg 'ARABIC LETTER YEH BARREE' >>>> (U+06D2) was previously named 'ARABIC LETTER YA BARREE'. Could anyone >>>> please clarify me on this? >>> >>> Unicode 1.0 was merged with an ISO draft into a joint character encoding. >>> In this process, different naming conventions got rationalized, and some >>> other changes were made to make this merged standard possible. >>> >>> You will find that all policies that prevent certain changes have a >>> well-defined starting version. No changes are allowed for any new version, >>> but sometimes, certain changes were made in early versions. >>> >>> See: http://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html >>> >>> For names, this document states: >>> >>> Name Stability >>> Applicable Version: Unicode 2.0+ >>> >>> The Unicode Name property value for any non-reserved code point will not be >>> changed. In particular, once a character is encoded, its name will not be >>> changed. >>> >>> As you can see, Unicode 1.0 names are explicitly not covered. >>> >>> A./ >> >
