Print

Print


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
   Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 17:17:26 +0100
   From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <[log in to unmask]>
 
   It is a misunderstanding that my scheme is only 2 characters
   about 500 characters in RFC 1345 have short identifiers with
   3 ore more characters in them. About 24.000 Chinese characters are
   also defined, and all of these are 5 characters long...
 
Thanks for the clarification.  If this is the case, then why don't
you simply use the ISO10646 names.  This would eliminate having a
redundant name collection which can only cause confusion and allow
errors to creep in.  Other than for efficiency reasons (i.e., the
length of the character name), there doesn't seem to be any
justification for having another set of names.  And, if storage
efficiency is the only possible justification, I'm sure there are
better ways to accomplish this, e.g., using 10646 as the BASESET
in the concrete syntax.
 
Glenn