Re: UTF-8N?

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 14:17:14 EDT

Chris Fynn wrote:

> wrote:
> > ... I think the suggestion that BOM and ZWNBSP be
> > de-unified, which I have heard before, may make the best sense.
> *If* that's the solution, it should be done yesterday. The longer it takes the
> more implementations (and data) there will be that needs to be changed.

It *was* done yesterday. In fact, it was done yester*year*.


U+2060 ZERO WIDTH WORD JOINER was accepted by the UTC on 99-Oct-26.

Now we are pushing through the long, bureaucratic process of getting
this accepted into 10646-1, so it we maintain synchronicity with a
joint publication of it as a *standard* character.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:04 EDT