Mark Davis wrote: > I think there is a misunderstanding because of the online utilities > which have been, for convenience, hosted with the same server as the > CLDR survey tool. So one sees "cldr" in the following URL, but that > doesn't mean a particular association with CLDR.
Yes, that was my fault. > But subheads are *not* Unicode Character Properties. And repeating the > caveats expressed earlier, the Nameslist data is designed for chart > production, not as a reliable source of machine-readable data. While > it may be in some cases useful to look at, the subheads are not > designed to be a consistent source of data. For example, one couldn't > use them effectively to find non-modern-use characters, because > different terms are used for that, and the groupings mix in other > characters. I don't recall anyone asking for that. > Other examples: the NamesList data doesn't include all the case > mappings, nor all the normative name aliases. Nor that. > One needs to use the UCD instead of trying to dig this information out > of the NamesList.txt file β because such information will be wrong and > incomplete. I don't recall anyone suggesting to use data from NamesList in preference to other UCD files. The issue is when NamesList is the only source. To circle back to the original topic, I suggested using NamesList data to find the cross-references from holes in the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols to existing BMP characters, in preference to using (a) comments in the (b) non-UCD MathClass* files. Both (a) and (b) prevent this scenario from being a matter of "use the UCD." Sorry to keep dragging this out, but I think there are still some misunderstandings and mischaracterizations surrounding the expectations of stability, formality, comprehensiveness, etc. of this data and its availability in other places. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO πΊπΈ
