On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

>Always a good point, and I can say that I am very much in agreement
>with the outlines of what you have proposed below.
>
>My only quibble (and it is minor minor minor) is that "UCA" might well
>be an opaque term to many reading the standard.  How about
>"human-readable" or some other tag instead?

Meh. I'm not particularly attached to the names, although
I'd be annoyed at a tag so very long as that.  It's the
functions that I believe we need, and we need standard
names for them. If they're included, by any fixed names,
in the standard, I'll be happy.

				Bear