Hi Yoshiki -

[BTW, for those of you who wonder if you've missed some of the 
conversation, you have - my message got held by the list moderator since 
it is slightly above the allowed size for posts to this list]

>>* While the name MultiString is compatible with the m17n "multi" prefix 
>>but it is hard to understand on its own (several people have protested 
>>against it).
>>
>>Let me know what you think.
> 
> 
>   What was the arguments against it? 

"MultiString and MultiSymbol are plain incomprehensible." (quote from a 
message I got off-list) I happen to agree; reading "MultiString" without 
knowing that "multi" is an m17n prefix makes me want to ask 
"multi-what?" (given that I know it's a string). And if you follow this 
logic you end up with "multi byte" which is one potential answer.

> My feeling was that "wide" got
> some connotation from C world's confusion

Which confusion?

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/stddef.h.html:

wchar_t
     Integer type whose range of values can represent distinct 
wide-character codes for all members of the largest character set 
specified among the locales supported by the compilation environment: 
the null character has the code value 0 and each member of the portable 
character set has a code value equal to its value when used as the lone 
character in an integer character constant.

There is really nothing confusing about it.

> so I opted different name
> "MultiString".  And I still like it.  And I still think MultiString is
> not that bad name.  I'm not sure about that the mix the concept of
> multi from m17n and multi-byte.  It may sounds like "plural strings",
> but not sure.

"More than one string" would've been my interpretation.

Cheers,
   - Andreas