On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:04:36AM +0900, Gaspar Sinai wrote: > > Unicode Consortium are just plain wrong if they think that someone > > will throw away the national standard and replace it with nothing. > > National Standards do not need to prove that Unicode can be transformed > > to them, the local standard body has no responsibility to make the > > mapping.
> There's one internationally standardized universal character set. There > are, I would guess, around 50 active national standards body. Unicode is > much better defined than any other character set standard I've seen. I > don't think it correct to say that a national standards body can spit > out yet another ill-defined character standard and the international > standards body must jump to respond. One thing to note is that Unicode is not just a product of Unicode Consortium but also has been in sync with ISO/IEC 10646 developed by ISO/IEC (as its name implies) in which all the nat'l standard bodies play important roles. > > If Unicode Consrotium are not publishing the maps it will create > > greater mess then there really is. > > Maybe the mess is created by those who continue to make new character > set standards without proper mappings to the one internationally > standardized universal character set. I fully agree with you. I'm wondering why nat'l standard bodies around the world keep making new nat'l character set standards EVEN AFTER they adopted ISO 10646 as their own nat'l standard. (I can come up with a couple of rationals for this...) Both JIS and KS did that back in mid-1990's and KS STOPPED making a new nat'l standard character set (although it revised KS X 1001 by adding a couple of new characters) while JIS keeps doing that with JIS X 0213. The same is true of GB 18030. Jungshik Shin -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
