• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: XMLDev list <xml-dev@l...>
• 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

• References:
  • Re: ISO 10646 vs. Unicode in XML specs
    • From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@v...>

• Prev by Date: Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: RE: problem with enumerated lists
• Previous by thread: Re: ISO 10646 vs. Unicode in XML specs
• Next by thread: RE: ISO 10646 vs. Unicode in XML specs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread