- From: klensin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 03:44:49 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
--On Wednesday, February 03, 2016 19:00 -0800 aphillips <notifications@github.com> wrote: > My point in including the parenthetical "(generally bytes)" is > that "code units" is a term of art that I didn't want to pause > to explain. People familiar with encodings will instantly grok > what I mean. But those who are not may need some guide post. > The use of the word "generally" was meant to indicate exactly > what you outline--the bytes (and here I mean octets, really) > are not always the code unit in question, even if that's true > for the most familiar encodings. > > I can drop the parenthetical, if you think it detracts from > our purpose. Or I can explain code units. Thoughts? I think there is a superficial explanation of "code unit" that defines in in terms of the intrinsic number of bits associated with a code point in the CCS that might serve the purpose better than either a complete explanation of "code unit" or "generally bytes". Given the above, I understand why you did that, but the problem is the large number of people who are not "familiar with encodings" (to the point necessary for instantaneous grokking) but who still have a clue or think they do. For that intermediate range, which might include a very large fraction of the intended audience for the spec, "generally bytes" could be very confusing. > --- > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: > https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/55#issuecomment-179 > 591620 -- GitHub Notification of comment by klensin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/55#issuecomment-179602989 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2016 03:44:50 UTC