On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:57:34PM +0000, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > MK> What we are trying to establish is the exact meaning that UNICODE > MK> ought to have - that is, if it can have one at all. > > In the Unix-like world, the term ``UTF-8'' has been used quite > consistently, and most documentation avoids using Unicode for a disk > format (using it for the consortium, er., the Consortium, the > character repertoire and, when useful, for the coded character set). > > The Unix-like public is used to thinking of UTF-8 as the format in > which Unicode text is saved on disk, and ``UTF-8 (Unicode)'' or > perhaps ``Unicode (UTF-8)'' should be the preferred user-interface > item.
I would rather recommend that you write ISO 10646 UTF-8 as the ISO standard is a standard in many countries while Unicode is not. Kind regards keld
