Oh, yes, that makes sense. And, yes, if someone wants a formal definition of what UTF-8 is, I imagine they should refer to the formal standards as published by the unicode consortium.
The rest of us will probably have to live with informal definitions... Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > "In this context" is still in the eye of the beholder. > > I thought the context was that you were giving a formal definition of what > UTF-8 is, and I quibbled with that. > > You thought, I suppose, that you were describing UTF-8's use in unicode, > with unicode assumed as the character set. > > Henry Rich > > > On 7/5/2016 1:46 PM, Raul Miller wrote: >> >> Why would you make this change? >> >> I think both statements are true: >> >> (1) "UTF-8 is a unicode encoding" - it is an encoding defined by the >> unicode consortium as a part of the unicode standards, and >> >> (2) "UTF-8 is a character encoding" - this encoding represents >> [unicode] characters. >> >> But I am not sure why you would want to replace the one phrasing with >> the other, in this context. >> >> Thanks, >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
