From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2008 - 02:14:26 CST
Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> replied to Jukka Korpela:
>> I would strongly recommend against using the phrase "character set"
>> at all,
> I'd warmly welcome your advice as to which term you currently
> recommend instead of 'character set', Jukka.
I'm neither Jukka nor a member of the UTC, but my advice would be to go
with "coded character set" and be done with it.
A coded character set has a mapping from the repertoire of characters to
integers, which is not true of a plain old character set. "Encoding
scheme" refers to the mapping of integers to byte sequences, which
Unicode has several of (UTF-32, UTF-16, UTF-8) and which should not be
the focus of attention here. The days of Unicode standing for a single
encoding scheme are long past.
For purposes of deciding what Unicode "is," the distinction between
Unicode and ISO 10646 is probably not relevant or helpful.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 25 2008 - 02:17:21 CST