W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > October 2004

RE: Your comments on Character Model Fundamentals [LC070, LC074, LC075, LC079, LC080, LC081, LC082, LC083, LC084, LC085, LC086, LC087, LC088, LC089]

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:17:05 +0100
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <1987416CA83AC7499AC772F92E2DBF78025067FF@LONSMSXM02.emea.ime.reuters.com>

> > >  Specifications of APIs SHOULD prefer strings over characters as
> > >  arguments and return types.
> > >
> > > would satisfy me.
> >
> > What about
> >
> >   Specifications of APIs SHOULD use strings rather than characters
> >   arguments and return types.
> >
> > I'm affraid that otherwise, we get into discussions of what exactly
> > 'prefer' means :-).
> Well, use it unless you know you don't "need" to... I guess I 
> could live
> with the text but I think requiring a preference rather than usage is
> better. I don't think people would argue about using "prefer" here as
> the text cannot be much clearer without getting more specific; all you
> want is that API designers do not use chars by accident of false
> assumptions...

It is reasonable to say "This plant prefers sunlight" but neither APIs 
nor specifications can 'prefer' anything.  Preferring can, IMO, only be 
done by living organisms.


--------------------------------------------------------------- -
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 17:17:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:15 UTC