Re: Questionable definition of Unicode

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Fri Jan 25 2008 - 02:14:26 CST

  • Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: Questionable definition of Unicode"

    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  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 25 2008 - 02:17:21 CST