From: Doug Ewell (dewell@roadrunner.com)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2008 - 22:50:31 CST
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 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 : Sat Jan 26 2008 - 22:53:37 CST