Daniel Michael McQuillen wrote:
> However, I'm still a little confused as to _why_ there are two different
> entities promoting the same standard, and why these groups use two
> different names.
In this case, the alternative would have been two different entities
promoting two different and incompatible standards under different
names. (Unicode is a vendor consortium, ISO is a federation of
national technical standards groups.) The fact that they produced
what is in effect the same standard was a tremendous technical win
as well as a political miracle.
John's Own Version Of Unicode Vs. ISO 10646 (Mark D., this is
OK for the FAQ):
1) Unicode goes from 0 to 0010FFFF; 10646 goes up to 7FFFFFFF, but
never intends to use the extra space.
2) 10646 sticks to just a few per-character properties: name, typical
glyph(s), combining character status, mirroring status; Unicode has gobs
of other properties.
3) Unicode's hard copy is about a tenth the price of 10646's, and
they have a useful web site, too.
4) Unicode doesn't formally support the 32-bit-wide fixed-width format
that 10646 calls UCS-4, but the conversions are trivial.
5) Everybody involved works real hard to make sure the standards
are synchronized and stay synchronized.
I think that says it all.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT