With regard to the status report on 10646, and assuming for purposes of
argument that this is how things will come out, two observations and a
question that might affect the message format effort. While they were
written independently, these comments partially reinforce Walt Daniels's
posting on the 21st. Unlike Walt, I do not want to see RFC-XXXX contain
specific language about the handling of 10646 before it is case into
concrete, and I think that dropping mnemonic would be a poor idea even
after 10646 comes into moderately wide use.
[Text deleted]
(iii) I assume that UTF is equivalent to, or nearly so, the proposed AUC.
Could someone confirm that the only contribution to confusio here is a
change of name, or do we have two such proposals on the table?
Allow me to present some of the history of these names:
At the "C0-group" meeting in Geneva this August, this method was one of
the key things we discussed. However, we found it awkward not to have
a name for it, and calling it various things like "the transformation
method" all the time was non-optimal. Therefore we started to think of
a good name for it, and quickly found out that we cound not find one.
We then decided to stick with any name just to get it done, and spend
the time on more constructive work, and let someone else find a good
name or acronyme. The acronyme ATM.1 was decided on, standing for
"A Transformation Method One", everybody was happy, and we thought
that it was bad enough that it had to be changed.
The name "AUC" was proposed later, possibly by Robert Ullmann, as the
real name for this same thing.
At the Paris meeting early October, "UTF" was decided upon.
In other and shorter words, yes, they mean the same thing. And "UTF"
is the real name.
john
--Johnny