Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:58:36 -0400
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:
> Given the exact correspondence between them, would anything be broken as far
> as you know if all references to ISO 10646 within the XML 1.0 spec were to be
> replaced by references to Unicode? In other words, is there any technical
> reason at all why ISO 10646 was chosen over Unicode as the defining document
> for character sets,
There can't be, since everything prescribed by 10646, with the narrow exception
of the subset-declaring ESCape sequences, which are not used by XML (or much
of anyone else AFAIK), is also prescribed by Unicode.
> or was it purely a political decision?
"Political" is technically correct, but has the wrong flavor. As I said,
international standards tend to be more stable than commercial ones, though
in this case there is no such difference.
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <email@example.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)