From: Marion Gunn (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2008 - 08:06:08 CST
On 25 Jan 2008, at 08:14, scríobh Doug Ewell:
> 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...
Thanks, Doug, for a helpful reply, although, as your answer goes on
to show, saying 'coded' generally means having to define that, which
might be more info than a person asking what Unicode is can actually
Two of the caps I wear are language community activist and community
language terminologist, where the same terminology sometimes does not
serve all audiences equally well, especially where technicians may
test the patience by failing to explain what they do intelligibly or
changing their terminology too frequently.
In general ('non-terminology') terms, I find it simpler to go on
talking about 'character sets', describing the Universal Character
Set/UCS/Unicode as the 'big business' incarnation of ISO 10646, as we
have done since the beginning (meaning some years short of 20 years
ago now, or 'long past', as you say).
In specific ('terminolgy') terms, of course, whenever someone
deprecates the plain term 'character set', I feel like proposing to
replace the title UCS with UCCS (Universal Coded Character Set) and
be done with it!
Would you consider that taking things too far, or do you think it
-- Marion Gunn firstname.lastname@example.org - - Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire. * email@example.com * firstname.lastname@example.org *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 25 2008 - 09:44:52 CST