On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:15:57PM +0000, David Hopwood wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: > > 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. > > But ISO 10646 is not the same as Unicode:
When people specify a character set they are probably not specifying the sorting order, character attrubures and such. Just the encoding is enough. Other things are often set in a locale. Furthermore there are ISO specs for many of these things, though not all. Kind regards Keld
