Adam M. Costello wrote:
>Keld J�rn Simonsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't think that ToUnicode is the correct name, as it is really >> 10646 that it is defined for. > >The difference between ISO-10646 and Unicode is not relevant here. >Both use the same table that maps between code points and characters. >The difference (as I understand it) is that Unicode defines lots of >additional information about the characters and how to handle them, >while ISO-10646 is little more than a table and some encoding forms. IETF should refer to official standards organisations if possible. So ToUCS is better than ToUnicode. Dan
