From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The historic notion > of Unicode as a uniformly 16-bit encoding has been in principle obsolete > for a while, but now it is also obsolete in practical terms. Actually, I think *that* statement is a bit premature, still. It is not obsolete in pratical terms until there is widespread support in the way of fonts, keyboards, IMEs, and the other important items that help bring characters to the user. Looking at it another way: prior to now, we were young teenagers, unable to drive. The work to produce 3.1 is like turning 16 and getting a license. But until we have a car that we are allowed to use, that license is just gonna burn a hole in our pocket. :-) michka
- The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 Mark Davis
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 Peter_Constable
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 James Kass
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 John H. Jenkins
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 Peter_Constable
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 Elliotte Rusty Harold
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 James Kass
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 James Kass
- Word and Version 3.1 characters David J. Perry
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: The Unicode Standard, Version 3.1 William Overington

