Talk:ZWNBSP

Redirect target
or Zero width no-break space is a name of Unicode character with the code point U+FEFF. The confusion here seems to be over whether that name refers to the Unicode character itself (U+FEFF) or to the functions it served (which has been split between U+FEFF and U+2060). While you could argue that full name is so descriptive that it could be used to refer to particular function it used to have, I don't see how anyone searching for acronym would want to end up redirected to article about a completely different character. It's not even a matter of disambiguation. I find it confusing that redirects to article about  rather than to the one that describes  (which is also alternatively known as  after it was repurposed). Of course, confusing names call for appropriate hatnotes so that one can easily find either, but should in my opinion be a redirect to  because that is where  is actually described. article mentions only to describe the relation between the two (even if it takes half of that article because it's just a stub and there's not much interesting to say about ). — mwgamera (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The formal name of U+FEFF is indeed "Zero width no-break space" and in official Unicode code sheets, it is indeed symbolised as [ZWNBSP]. The interesting thing is that U+FEFF was once formally named "Byte Order Mark"[Unicode 1.0 UnicodeData.txt]|undefined and was changed to "ZWNBSP" soon after in Version 1.0.1[Unicode 1.0.1 UnicodeData.txt where the "BOM" is now FEFF's alias.


 * Scope_creep stated that "[the WJ] information is partially represented in Word joiner article;" it replaces ZWNBSP when the user is intending to have a non-breaking space of zero width [note the word order]. I mostly agree with Scope_Creep's rejection of my edit. However, because of the name stability policy, FEFF will always be called "ZWNBSP" whereas 2060 shall never be called "ZWNBSP" and will always be referred as "WJ". Here are a few known statements and my proposals:
 * FEFF's formal name is "ZWNBSP"; it was "BOM" only for the very first version of Unicode.
 * The "ZWNBSP" name for FEFF reflects on its historical use as a non-breaking space of zero width. At that time, FEFF takes on both roles as the BOM [when used at the beginning of text files], and as a WJ [when used anywhere else]. It is a very notable special character in Unicode, comparable to the replacement character FFFD; the term "ZWNBSP" always refers to FEFF.
 * Nowadays, ZWNBSP's usage as a non-breaking space of zero width is deprecated. Some programs treat non-BOM usage of FEFF as an error; ensuring that FEFF will always be used as a BOM.
 * U+2600 will serve the role as a non-breaking space of zero width, but will be named "WJ". FEFF's name will not change back to "BOM" because of the name stability policy, and U+2600 will not be called "ZWNBSP" because all formal names are unique. The context for the ZWNBSP/WJ article is about Unicode; we do not want to confuse one code point with another even if WJ is now used as the non-breaking space of zero width.
 * ZWNBSP will now redirect to the Byte Order Mark page, while mentioning WJ because usage of FEFF as a non-breaking space of zero width is deprecated. BOM is an alias and a former name of ZWNBSP. It will not be a disambiguation.
 * WJ will clearly be stated as "the non-breaking space of zero width", despite not being named like other whitespace characters. It will mention ZWNBSP, nothing that ZWNBSP was historically used as a non-breaking space of zero width aka WJ [as well as the BOM] until Unicode 3.2.
 * ZWNBSP is the name of FEFF, and reflects on its historical use. The use as a non-breaking space of zero width is called WJ. ZWNBSP is a special Unicode character that is nowadays used as BOM.

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree on these facts. As I see the it, Scope creep argued that because this page is not linked from any other article, it may only act as a search aid (I think this is what was meant by “no references”), and therefore it makes no sense to turn it into disambiguation and all that should be explained in target article. My point is, that indeed it shouldn't be, but people entering ZWBNSP into search box should be redirected to where it is described, not to article about related but different character. Especially since all that information you wrote above clearly (in my opinion) belongs to BOM article, even if article about WJ may perhaps repeat some parts of it to give historical background. — mwgamera (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Totally agree! ZWNBSP is very special in Unicode; it is misleading to lead users to WJ even though WJ is a "non-breaking space of zero width." Nevertheless, a clear mention is recommended. --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)