In a message dated 2001-09-17 13:06:16 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I agree that there is a world of software out there that does not support
> Unicode 3.1 yet. Toby has a legitimate problem. It is the proposed
solution
> that bothers me. For now I suspect that living w
Addison,
>
> By providing a documented, standard way to refer to legacy
> versions of these products and their encodings, I can more
> readily rely on having a well-documented range of protocols and
> procedures for converting and validating data exchanged with
> these systems. The argument
Folks,
I've been following this thread for awhile and it seems that I can make a small
contribution.
Several comments have been made about why we should NOT document this and give it some
kind of official imprimatur. I agree that it will generate more confusion and may be
used in unforeseen w
3 matches
Mail list logo
