From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 21:35:29 CST
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 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 21:37:06 CST