I would support ToNonACE. Liana
On Fri, 10 May 2002 19:35:31 +0000 "Adam M. Costello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Another thought, may be ToNonLDH is a more accurate name. > > No, because the output of ToUnicode sometimes is LDH. > > > I think ToNonAscii is much better than ToUnicode. > > No, because the output of ToUnicode sometimes is ASCII. > > The only thing we can say for sure about the output of ToUnicode is > that > it is never ACE. (Well, and that it's Unicode, but all strings in > the > IDNA spec are Unicode. Even ASCII strings are Unicode, because > Unicode > is an extension of ASCII.) > > The only names I can think of that might be better than ToUnicode are > ToNonACE and UnACE. Since no one has expressed support for either of > those, I guess we're sticking with ToUnicode. > > Keld J�rn Simonsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think that ToUnicode is the correct name, as it is really > > 10646 that it is defined for. > > The difference between ISO-10646 and Unicode is not relevant here. > Both use the same table that maps between code points and characters. > The difference (as I understand it) is that Unicode defines lots of > additional information about the characters and how to handle them, > while ISO-10646 is little more than a table and some encoding forms. > > AMC > ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
