From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 27 14:56:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16239 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 21:46:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 21:46:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 21:46:21 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.3f.6b6c54e (4402) for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3f.6b6c54e.268a7a96@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:45:58 EDT Subject: RE:character names To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-06-27 13:51:13 EDT, cowan writes: << The Unicode/ISO 10646 index numbers serve that purpose [names for the characters per se, not just by function], and we have the cmavo "se'e" to mark a character code. >> Fine for those who carry that -- or the extended ASCII code or whatever -- around in their heads, but not nearly so useful as meaningful names (though the meaningful ones may be the functional ones after all). And the ISO _names_ are the old mixtures of uses and what not again. As for other systems, the original RECORD on all this stuff mentioned emoticons as a natural target for the {---bu} locution. Here I think there is less danger of mixing systems, since this seems a novel system ingeniously being put together daily out of fairly intractable pieces (and we can spell them with good character names).