Re: Questionable definition of Unicode

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Jan 26 2008 - 22:50:31 CST

  • Next message: Christopher Fynn: "Unicode, Java and Complex Script fonts"

    Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> wrote:

    > 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
    > use.

    Per Jukka's advice, I will back off from my suggestion to add "coded."
    "Character set" is fine. Most choices would have been better for the
    IDN Glossary than "encoding scheme," which has a specific meaning.

    > 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?

    I think that would be taking things too far. WG2 already makes
    reference to the "Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS)"
    and I have seen no proposals to change the abbreviation to UMOCCS.

    Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ 

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 26 2008 - 22:53:37 CST