Talk:Unicode strings

The task description change

I strongly object to the modified task description and requirement here. My intention was to have people tell us about their languanges' Unicode capabilities in general, not having them solve puzzles. This is a fairly big topic, and people should be allowed to talk about various aspects of it, not just the specified 4 things. The original requirement was specifically made as suggestions, not homework assignment. --Ledrug 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that the modifications are inconsiderate. They should be discussed, especially with the original task author. Immediate self-promotion from draft status is even worse. —Sonia 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Original wording "Demonstrate how one is expected to handle Unicode strings. Some example considerations: can a Unicode string be directly written in the source code?", rewording "Demonstrate how Unicode strings are represented in source code". (The new wording gives scope for embedding of Unicode strings or representation by other means. The old wording just gives a boolean yes or no,)

Original wording "How does one do IO with unicode strings?", rewording "How to perform input and output using Unicode strings" (They are the same thing).

Original wording "Can these strings be manipulated easily?", rewording "Demonstrate examples of string manipulation" (The meaning has not changed, but we have the facility to demonstrate, rather than a boolean yes or no response.)

Can non-ASCII characters be used for keywords/identifiers/etc (see Unicode variable names)? I dropped this, because we have separate tasks for part of it, and we can create a "Unicode keywords" task to cover the keywords bit.

Original wording "What encodings (UTF-8, UTF-16, etc) can your language accept without much trouble?", rewording "Demonstrate: Encodings supported by the language (eg UTF-8, UTF-16, etc)". Again the revision gives scope for demontration, rather than a boolean response.

Where is the problem? Markhobley 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Originally they were preceded by "some example considerations:", which makes a big difference--they were not task requirements, just some suggestions of what to say. And some of these can be talked about, but difficult to demonstrate. How are you going to demonstrate your language can handle UTF-16 when the web page is encoded in UTF-8? Again, this is a very big and important topic, so people should be allowed to talk about what they think is most important. It helps to gather key points here, instead of forcing readers to go to one page for keywords, another for variable names, etc. And at least, discuss about intended changes before you just go and do it: apparently I am not alone in disliking the changes. I'd like to hear some more opinions on this, and if not many people support the changes, I'll revert it later. --Ledrug 17:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the demonstrations optional. I am sure that it must be possible to demonstrate handling of UTF16. Just a quick search through google, and it appears to be done on other websites ok. Markhobley 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We could merge the Unicode tasks into one task called Unicode, or maybe we could create a parent task that links to these subtasks. I had the reverse problem on a task that I had written. I tried to gather information points in one place, and people wanted it breaking down. There are probably pros and cons to both methods. I think they should be kept separate, but grouped together under a category "Unicode". Markhobley 18:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording still feels too much like homework assignment. I'll probably change something later. On a separate note, where did that "510k" figure come from in Locomotive Basic section? --Ledrug 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)