On Tue, 2021-03-02 at 05:20 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 3/1/2021 10:48 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > I agree with whoever has mentioned it that "*octet* sequences" needs to > > be removed or replaced. I hope this has already happened. > > The concern was to switch from 'byte' to 'octet'. So octet is what the > draft now uses. Not exactly - here's the relevant excerpt (you responding to me): > So, use "emoji characters" or "code points" instead? > > (I tend to avoid the use of "byte" in favour of "octet" to > forestall complaints from the old DEC-10, DEC-20 and Cray > users anyway ☺) Well, indeed, my entrenched use of byte probably gets in the way, here... I want the term to be more low-level and physical, than abstract or conceptual. That is, I'd like the term to be outside of the Unicode specialized terminology. To that end, I think octet works well. I didn't belabour the point then, but I still much prefer "code points" (or "emoji characters"). (I probably should not have added the parenthesis - it's a bad habit of mine to bring up such tangents.) -- venleg helsing, Kjetil T. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
