David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:12:08PM +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > OK, UTF-8 is my favorite default UTF too. However, whatever
> the default is,
> > it is easier to just call it "Unicode", and call the other
> options "Unicode
> > (something else)".
> >
> > That puts one less acronym in front of the "naive" user.
> The expert user is
> > supposed to know what the default UTF is on her platform.
>
> What happens when a user is told to save in UTF-16? What
> about when two users running different operating systems
> try to pass files about? And why would Unicode be any
> clearer to a naive user than UTF-16?
I only have a definite answer for the last question: everybody I know who
works on computer know what Unicode is, but I never met out of this mailing
list anyone who was familiar with the acronym "UTF-16"...
By the way, because of its transparent etymology, the name "Unicode" is also
quite self-explanatory. On the other hand, "UTF-16" is just one more
3-letter acronym for one more 16-bit technology, so it could be mistaken
with all kinds of computer-related products.
> IMO, UTF-16 is as clear as Unicode, and more accurate. Being
> consistent among platforms is a needed plus.
Perhaps "more accurate", but definitely not "as clear as".
_ Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 08:28:58 EST