From: "Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > De: "Markus Scherer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > It looks to me like Christopher is not after an analysis of what standards > could somehow be squeezed > > to use Unicode charsets, but rather a list of standards that _specify_ > (actively, not potentially) > > Unicode/10646. > > > > The obvious ones are of course > > HTML (at least since 4.01: > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/charset.html#h-5.1) > > XML > > ECMAScript > > > > I do not have a complete list. > > Another one : ISO 14651 (collation), I believe.
What about "official" transliteration schemes for toponomy, people names, trademarks?... Some of these standards (also used in bibliographic references and translations) are ISO standards, but most of them were adopted long before Unicode...
