🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jenkinsj-130892151628@tseng.taligent.com> jenkinsj@blowfish.taligent.com (John H. Jenkins) writes:
>In article <23303A@erik.naggum.no>, enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) wrote:
>> ...
>> That's the abbreviation after the standard's full name, which is (was,
>> at DIS stage, anyway):
>> 
>> 	Information technology -- Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
>> 	Character Set (UCS)
>> 
>> I seem to remember that somebody wanted "multiple-octet" removed from
>> the title.  Anybody else know the details on this?
> ...
>The problem with the name "multiple-octet" is that it implies that 10646
>text can be processed as a series of bytes instead of as a series of words
>or longwords.  This can be disastrous in C because of the NUL octets in
>some character codes.   Changing the name to avoid this implication would
>be nice, but ISO regulations would consider changing the standard's name a
>major revision, which would require a third ballot, and *nobody* wanted a
>third ballot. 

I don't think that the stupid idiosyncrasies of one particular
programming language should be taken into account when a long-time
universal character code is defined.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Markku Sakkinen (sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi)
       SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative network address)
Department of Computer Science and Information Systems
University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts)
PL 35
SF-40351 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again)
Finland
----------------------------------------------------------------------