I think that it's very wise of the Unicode Consortium not to certify or officially promote any particular implementation. After all, some programmers are more skilled than others, and some implementations may not be of the quality one might wish. Or what if a member company produced a decent implementation, but the competing product by a small, non-member company was better? This could be a real mess. The Unicode web site does have a list of Unicode-enabled products (I'm not sure how complete it is), which is helpful and appropriate--but I wouldn't want to see anything beyond that.
David > Arsa Doug Ewell: > > ... > > Unicode does not create, or even certify or register, > implementations > > of its standard. I have been paying attention to Unicode > for 10 years > > now, at least casually, and I have never seen anything from the > > Unicode Consortium that gave me the impression they were in the > > implementation business. Member companies, yes, but not the > > Consortium. > > > > I only saw it as the simple equation "Membercomany1 + > Membercompany2 = Consortiumcompany" (that is, the sum of its > individual members), with relevant new sw packages/upgrades > promoted by Unicode members as just > that: as approved implementations of the standard they > 'consort' to create, and for there to be a growing registry > to match, but I see now that was either wishful thinking, or > thinking too far ahead, which can often happen. > mg >
