Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: XMLDev list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:02:12 -0700
At 01:53 PM 01/08/00 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>The XML 1.0 spec actually has references both to Unicode and to ISO 10646.
>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, or was it purely a political decision?
The XML spec is careful to reference both. In the real world, I recommend using
the Unicode spec for actual reference and lookup purposes, since it is a well-designed,
handsomely printed book with useful accompanying CD-ROM, available at a fair price
from the Unicode.org website. I've never actually seen a copy of 10646. -Tim