This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Useless article
"Legacy encoding" is not "Unicode terminology." There is no such phrased defined or recognized by The Unicode Standard or Unicode Technical Reports. It is merely the adjective 'legacy' being used to qualify the word 'encoding.' You could have just linked it like this rather than creating a redundant article:
by unicode terminolgy i meant the terminology they use and seem to have introduced even if they don't formally define it. There is currently very little computer related at
Wiktionary:legacy and certainly nothing mentioning character encodings. Unicode use the term in a way that seems to be based on the belief that if its not unicode its obsolete/legacy even though those encodings are still in active use and some of them have even been added or changed since unicode was introduced so they don't really fit the dictionary definition of legacy imo. If you belive that this information can be incorporated in the wikitionary article without hugely bloating it/taking it offtopic then go ahead and merge this into it.
Plugwash10:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't feel strongly enough about it to nominate this article for deletion, and I'm not going to try to throw the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" rulebook at you; it's just that, well, giving 'legacy something-or-other' its own article sort of artificially inflates the topic's depth. I mean, once it has its own article, you can then talk about it at length, as was done in
legacy system,
legacy code,
legacy support, and
legacy preferences (found those listed on the
legacy disambig page), but the 'legacy' aspect of these topics is all essentially the same general concept, and the need for the topics to be explored in their own articles pretty much goes away if the word 'legacy' is explained well enough. As we have both said, the Wiktionary definition of legacy needs to be expanded to capture the nuances of these various scenarios. I'd rather have seen your efforts devoted there rather than here. Wiktionary needs a lot of help, IMHO. —
mjb18:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)reply
As a technical term, it is undefined. As a biased speech (usually advertizing Unicode) it is not notable. I agree, it is a useless article
almost without links, and references that do exist are confusing and misleading like “converting to and from a large number of legacy encodings” (from
mined (text editor)). Encodings are classified by code point size: 7 bit, 8 bit, 16 bit, Unicode (may require different programming environments and API) and by compatibility: ASCII compatible, partially ASCII compatible and ASCII incompatible (these are different in processing e.g. in text editors and E-mail). Is there a separate problem with supporting of so named legacy encodings like e.g. supporting of legacy scripts (with unavailable fonts etc.)? There is not. We even does not need Wiktionary here, links such as “
legacyencoding” would be appropriate in some cases, and this article should be transferred to a small paragraph in the
character encoding article, redirected and forgotten.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
08:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't the list include
ASCII? It' still the fastest way to get something small done quickly. Including a note that it is subsumed into Unicode/UTF-8?