Since I'm continuing the terminology thread, I think it
might be appropriate to clear up a wrong impression I
may have left yesterday in my quick response to Marco. I said:
> Somehow this morphed into an email freeforall about fixing bunches of terms
> and the introduction of new ones.
The original UTC document that spurred the discussion on the
UTC list that later spilled over onto this list did, in fact,
ask for wide-ranging feedback on a number of terminological
issues related to character and code point types. I personally
disagreed with where the discussion headed and with a number
of the suggestions that were made. But I don't want to leave
the impression that anybody was acting inappropriately on
the list by in fact providing the kind of feedback that was
requested in the original document.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue May 07 2002 - 18:30:06 EDT