That is true.
But if you count all applications that "support" the Unicode range U+0000 to
U+007F using UTF-8, then the list could become quite lengthy (and overlap
with the ASCII Consortium's list)...
Using common sense, I feel that the list should state which scripts each
product supports (support of bidi may be implied for products that claim
support for Arabic and/or Hebrew).
For some very international scripts such as Latin, Arabic or Cyrillic, it
could also be useful to know which languages are supported.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 1999 September 27, Monday 16.55
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Granularity of Unicode Conformance
> Hart, Edwin F. scripsit:
> > Jonathan Rosenne raises one of the problems with the description of
> > 2.0 conformance. The chapter describes what is required for a product
> > *fully* support Unicode 2.0. However, I believe that it is safe to say
> > most products implement only subsets of the Unicode 2.1 repertoire and
> > functionality (e.g., bidi algorithm). Thus, 2 products may claim to
> > Unicode 2.0 or 2.1 but each may implement different subsets and neither
> > provide the support that the user expected.
> Subsets have nothing to do with conformance: you can be fully conformant
> and only support the ASCII repertoire. Check out the 10 easy rules
> for Unicode conformance in the Unicode FAQ at
> of which #8 is "Subsets are strictly up to you".
> John Cowan email@example.com
> I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT