They do have aliases in NameAliases.txt 0000;NULL;control
0000;NUL;abbreviation 0001;START OF HEADING;control 0001;SOH;abbreviation 0002;START OF TEXT;control 0002;STX;abbreviation ... Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Per Starbäck <[email protected]>wrote: > Ken Whistler wrote: > > Ah, I see what the interpretation problem was. Yes, that is > > a straightforward kind of improvement -- easily enough done. > > Look for a change the next time the file is updated. (It will not > > be immediately changed, pending other review comments.) > > Thanks! Then I'll skip making a formal request about this. > > Regarding these names in ISO 6429 again, how come these control > characters don't have Unicode names? For many uses of names, the control > characters have as much need for them as any other character. > Since it seems so straightforward it must have been suggested several > times to introduce names like > > CONTROL CHARACTER NULL > CONTROL CHARACTER START OF HEADING > CONTROL CHARACTER START OF TEXT > > etc., so I assume there are good reasons for not doing that, but I can't > see what they are. > > Since applications want names they will use other things as names when > there isn't a real name, and that leads to problems. Take Emacs where > the command describe-char currently describes U+0007 as > > name: <control> > old-name: BELL > > (I reported the misusage of "<control>" here as a name in 2009, but it > wasn't fixed until this year, so still not in a released version.) > The usage of "BELL" here invites confusion with U+1F514 BELL. > > Emacs should do better regarding this, but still, with a proper name > all of this would have been averted. > _______________________________________________ > Unicode mailing list > [email protected] > http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode >
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
