RE: Fwd: Wired 4.09 p. 130: Lost in Translation

From: Alain LaBont/e'/ (
Date: Thu Aug 29 1996 - 12:01:21 EDT

At 11:08 29/08/1996 -0400, Glen.Seeds wrote:
>I'm not sure that this is quite right. I always thought that UNIVERSAL
>TRANSFORMATION FORMAT meant that it was a form that anything could be
>transformed TO, passed though systems that didn't understand 10646 or
>UNICODE, and then transformed FROM again, with no loss. "Transformed
>format" doesn't quite capture this. You may want to talk to Gary Miller
>of IBM about the original intent.
> /glen

Isn't that a transformed format? i.e. a format transformed from the UCS to
something else. I do not understand the complex subtlety of the nuance you
try to explain, if there is one, as you like the ambiguous arborescence but
that does not help understanding what it is *really*.

Anyway it is ambiguous, we don't know if it is the format that is universal
or the transformation, and we don't know the relationship between
"transformation" and "format": format after transformation? format for a
[future] transformation?
both (as you say)? format of transformation (which makes no sense)? And so
on and so forth. We can go on and on with this, the beauty of English for
negociations is that everybody is satisfied even if not two people
understand the same thing... that is quite useful sometimes, but not in a
standard, I believe (-;


>>From: Alain LaBont/e'/[]
>>Sent: August 29, 1996 8:36 AM
>>To:; unicode@Unicode.ORG
>>Subject: RE: Fwd: Wired 4.09 p. 130: Lost in Translation
>>Btw when we made the French version of the UCS (JUC -- jeu universel de
>>caracthres codis sur plusieurs octets) we had a hard time understanding the
>>real meaning of "transformation format"... after a long discussion we called
>>it "format transformi" in French. Mr. Paterson (the current editor odf the
>>UCS) said he should and would perhaps change the English name to
>>"transformed format"...

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT