Re: Questionable definition of Unicode

From: Marion Gunn (
Date: Fri Jan 25 2008 - 08:06:08 CST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: New FAQ on submitting proposals"

    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
    would help?

    Marion Gunn
    - -
    Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
    27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
    Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
    * * *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 25 2008 - 09:44:52 CST