3 ms·

No, they just used rune because it sounds cool and someone felt two words was too much, also why follow the terminology of a well-established international stan

• fao_ 8y ago
  As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Rune was the agreed-upon term by the inventors of UTF-8. They literally set the standard that was adopted as UTF-8.
  • mkl 8y ago
    UTF-8 is just an encoding of Unicode. The Unicode terminology is "code point". Terminology may have been more varied 30 years ago, but "code point" won long ago, and using other words to mean the same thing is just confusing.
    • fao_ 8y ago
      That may be the case, but Rune as a term for implementation predates the accepting of UTF-8 as Unicode. In addition, Rune refers to a specific implementation of the code point. As far as I am aware, UTF-8 doesn't define a code point as being uint32, rather it just defines it as a point within the code space (which is defined to be at least a certain size), a code point could be implemented in any number of ways internally. When talking about implementation details, a Rune is defined as a uint32, which is analogous (for implementation purposes) as a code point. That is to say, a Rune is a manifestation of a code point, but a code point need not always map to that internally. This is like complaining over using "int" instead of "uint32_t" (I'm sure someone else can think of a better example, actually).