Re: Representing Unix filenames in Unicode

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 21:35:29 CST

  • Next message: Chris Jacobs: "Re: Representing Unix filenames in Unicode"

    Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:

    >>>>> Most facts points to that the Unicode/10646 is a human interface,
    >>>>> not a computer to computer [] interface.
    >> ...I mean saying that "Unicode/10646 is a human interface." It's a
    >> coded character set.
    > I abbreviated "human to human interface and human to computer
    > interface" to "human interface", as I felt that the former was too
    > long. Sorry if some clarity was missed out by that.

    1. I don't see how Unicode, or any other coded character set, can be
    considered a human-to-human interface. Very few humans communicate
    directly with each other by means of character codes.

    2. Coded character sets exist so that computers can deal with text.
    This has to do with input and output, which is human-to-computer, but it
    also has to do with processing and interchange, which is

    3. The original statement sounded as though "Unicode/10646" were
    somehow different from other coded character sets, in terms of being
    human-to-human or computer-to-computer. If that was intended, I don't

    Doug Ewell
    Fullerton, California, USA

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 21:37:06 CST