From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 06:06:51 CST
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> The assignment of code points and names or script block names is also a
>> separate standard not part of the Unicode standard:
> Sorry, I can't follow you there. If you are referring to the coordination
> of ISO 10646 and the Unicode Standard, it's perhaps best to read what the
> Unicode FAQ (and the Unicode Standard) says about the issue.
I don't think it's necessary; whatever the level of collaboration between
the Unicode Consortium and the ISO working groups, it remains that only ISO
decides and Unicode executes. A very significant part of the Unicode
standard is a rewording of the true ISO 10646 standard, with less importance
than the ISO 10646 definition (the fact the Unicode makes this rewritten
part normative in the Unicodestandard is an error, as it should better be
informative and linked to the ISO 10646 definition), and thus only consists
in being bound to ISO 10646 conformance rules.
The FAQ only gives more troubles when knowing who is right when there's a
difference of interpretation. This gave past errors for example in the
normative definition of UTF-8 before the two working groups decided to agree
on the same text, in order for it to become really normative.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 19 2005 - 06:08:51 CST