From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 14:50:27 CST
On Tuesday, January 4th, 2005 19:22Z Kenneth Whistler va escriure:
> But getting back on topic, Antoine Leca commented:
>> Also, conformance to 10646 (very different from compliance to
>> Unicode) requires the mention of the UTF, the implementation level
>> and the collections used.
> I wouldn't draw quite the same conclusions.
> 10646 states:
> "A claim of conformance shall identify the adopted form, the
> adopted implementation level and the adopted subset by means of
> a list of collections and/or characters."
> Note the crucial point -- this is about a *claim* of conformance.
> And this is the reason why the Unicode Standard includes,
> in Appendix C.5, just such a claim, indicating (p. 1352) that
> the Unicode Standard has the following features:
> * Numbered subset 305 (UNICODE 4.0)
> * UTF-8, UTF-16, or UCS-4 (= UTF-32)
> * Implementation level 3
> Unicode implementations can then implicitly derive their claims
> of conformance to 10646 from Unicode's own claim of conformance,
> as long as they then conform to the Unicode Standard itself.
> This does not, of course, prevent an implementation from making
> a more restricted claim of conformance, as in supporting only
> a single Unicode Encoding Form or a much more restricted subset
> of characters.
Sorry: I did not check the exact meaning of the word "claim", nor did I have
the needed legal background to read it right on the first shot.
From what I read now, it seems that a "claim of conformance" can be
transitive. I would not have think of it, but if this the law, let's conform
to it. Just using UTF-16 as character set, and we are registered as
conformant to ISO/IEC 10646. Nice, after all.
Also, the original point was that "it is illegal [...] to sell non-ISO
10646-compliant software in the EU." From what you are saying here, one way
to achieve such conformance/compliance (another distinction I am not sure I
get correctly) is to ship Unicode-conforming devices. I hope you are not
implying it is the *only* way to achieve 10646-conformance ;-). (Yes, I did
write the part I snipped where you're saying that it is unless the software
> However, *being* in conformance to 10646 doesn't necessarily involve
> making an explicit claim of conformance.
Then what is the purpose of the whole section?
How does someone assure this? (I guess I do not masterize ISO 9000 enough to
have it right, yet I seem to remember you have to write something somewhere
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 14:53:52 CST