From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 11:44:19 EDT
At 15:23 +0200 2003-07-19, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>Unicode does not define the charset (which are defined by ISO10646),
That isn't true. They both define the same character set. (I will not
use the term "charset".)
>but character properties and related algorithms, and (in cooperation
>with ISO10646) their codepoint assignments.
The code position assignments are (formally) assigned by WG2, but
there is consensus between UTC and WG2 on this matter.
>For me, Unicode is NOT a character set, but an encoded character
>set, with a small but important nuance: You need to specify a
>version after Unicode to indicate the character set. So Unicode 4.0
>is a character set, and a superset of Unicode 3.2, but Unicode alone
To me, "Unicode" refers to the most recent version. :-)
>If you just look at this definition, you cannot "prefer Unicode to
Yes, I can.
>because Unicode is just a name of a collection of standards and a
>collection of character sets and algorithms
That isn't true. If you think this is true, you really have a lot to
learn about Unicode.
>and already is a subset of the next version... If you cannot support
>the idea of subsets, then don't use Unicode, or wait that the
>Unicode standard is definitely closed, or permanently consider that
>is repertoire is now closed and no more characters will be added...
>Of course you would be wrong.
I think you mistook me.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 12:30:19 EDT