From: K I Larsson [ki@lwp.se]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 16:01
To: Hart, Edwin F.
Cc: 'Everson, Michael'; 'Aliprand, Joan'
Subject: Re: new 2375 definitions


Dear Ed,

Sorry I haven't answered your e-mail of Oct. 5th earlier! I have had some
unplanned personal business away from Stockholm (in addition to some
planned professional back home) to attend to.

> Do you find the following definitions to be acceptable?
> 
> 4.3 coded character set; code: A set of unambiguous rules that
establishes a
> character set and the one-to-one relationship between each character of
the
> set and its coded representation (bit combination).

The Swedish NB comments on the CD 2375 were based on the view that
definitions within WG3 standards should be identical as far as possible.
Personally I see no reason why this definition in 2375 should differ, even
in detail, from the one in 8859 and 6937. (Incidentally it should be
noticed that the 8859/6937 definition was developed later than the 10646-1
one.)
 
> 4.4 code position; position: That part of a code table identified by its
> column and row coordinates.
> 
> CD 2375 used the term "code position" where 8859 used "position" and both
> terms had exactly the same definition.  What I did was include the term
> "position" as an alternate term for "code position" and "code" as an
> alternate term for "coded character set".  I retained the 2375 definition
of
> "coded character set".

Our NB saw no reason for the introduction of the new concept "code
position". 8859 defines "code table" and it defines "position". In some
places in the 8859 text the compound "code table position" is used; and we
did not see why the 2375, in the corresponding situations, needed a
different wording. Also like in the previous case, we did not think it
justified to deviate from what was decided after a very long (perhaps too
long) text development process.

We were aware that the CD used the term "code position" in a number of
places. But that is not what 8859 does; so our preferences would have been
for a simple word processor substitution with "code table position" in all
(?) of the text.

But these are my personal opinions, and also it is a little difficult to
judge these two definitions in isolation. We have a meeting in our CS WG
Oct. 30th, and I would like to bring the matter up there. Would it be
possible for me to get the complete list of 2375  definitions, as it is at
the moment?

Best regards, KI