time there has been some kind of revisionism leaning towards Unicode –
probably to avoid confusion and more specifically to prevent these kinds
of discussions turning up on mailing lists ;)
I’ve now managed to successfully bore my self to sleep with this
riveting subject matter. Just enough energy left to sign off…
André
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2003 17:07
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Multilingual site?
> Not that I am an expert on any of this, but can you really go to
unicode.org an expect any acronym with a U in it not to mean Unicode?
well they actually acknowledge UCS in the OR bit. they also have UCS-2,
etc
defined in their glossary and they have synched up to ISO 10646,
etc.--so
they aren't that one-sided. but since the unicode consortium is doing
most
of the work these days (or did, the commercial driving force behind it
looks
to be satisified with the encoding "as is" and may actually peter out) i
guess i'll take their definition.
> Reading rfc2044 at ietf.org, I get...
"UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646"
> So Andre may still be correct.
hard to say. for me its still unicode as the char codes represented in
that
transform is unicode. its not used by anything else, etc.
_____
[Todays
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
