On 23 Nov 2011, at 02:25, Doug Ewell wrote: > Asmus Freytag replied to Jeremie Hornus: > >>> 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. > > And there are many cases where "Glyph Description" would be very misleading. > Neither "LATIN SMALL LETTER A" nor "LATIN SMALL LETTER G" specifies one > common glyph variant or the other for those letters, and "MASCULINE ORDINAL > INDICATOR" is in no way a description of a glyph. >
OK, I understand your point here. My point was just that "name" can be misleading as well, specially where it refers to non-Latin characters because the "name" itself is made with Latin letters. J. > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 > www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell > >
