On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:31:16AM +0100, Markus Kuhn wrote: > ISO 10646 lacks much of the useful information, guidelines, databases, > technical reports, and subsetting information that the Unicode Standard > provides. ISO 10646 mentions briefly three implementation levels, which > look not too useful in practice and appear a bit like they have been put > in on short notice to shut up someone in the committee who wasn't happy > with combining characters.
yes, Unicode have more information than ISO. Unicode has chosen not to forward these specs for ISO standardisation to gain control over the specification, AFAICT. It is like the old "embrace and enhance" policy that many big companies have so big success in doing. One of the reasons for the non-submissions of Unicode specs to ISO may be that many of them are kludges, like having more than one representation for a given chearacter (like the fully composed and the combining characters, and then the myriads of normalization forms then required to make sense of it) and the 16 bit hack of UTF-16. best regards keld -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
